Ipol stoa et-2012_488798_en
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Ipol stoa et-2012_488798_en

on

  • 393 views

technology transfer

technology transfer

Statistics

Views

Total Views
393
Views on SlideShare
393
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Ipol stoa et-2012_488798_en Document Transcript

  • 1. Knowledge Transfer FromPublic Research Organisations Science and Technology Options Assessment
  • 2. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment_________________________________________________________________________________This project has been carried out by Technopolis Group.AUTHORSErik ArnoldPaula KneeNeil BrownZsuzsa JávorkaFlora GiarraccaSabeen SidiquiRESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATORSMiklós Györffi and Theodoros KarapiperisScience and Technology Options AssessmentDirectorate G: Impact Assessment and European Added ValueDG Internal PoliciesEuropean ParliamentRue Wiertz 60 - RMD 00J008B-1047 BrusselsE-mail: theodoros.karapiperis@ep.europa.euLINGUISTIC VERSIONOriginal: ENABOUT THE EDITORTo contact STOA or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to:stoa@ep.europa.euManuscript completed in September 2012Brussels, © European Union, 2012This document is available on the Internet at:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/default_en.htmDISCLAIMERThe opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and donot necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided thesource is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.
  • 3. Knowledge Transfer FromPublic Research Organisations Final Report IP/A/STOA/FWC/2008-096/LOT8/C1/SC9 November 2012 PE 488.798
  • 4. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment_________________________________________________________________________________AbstractThis study describes knowledge transfer from European universities andinstitutes to industry, focusing on the role of the Industrial Liaison /Technology / Knowledge Transfer Office function. It explores practices inEuropean institutions and compares these with international ones,especially from the USA. The project is based upon a comprehensiveliterature review and a programme of detailed case studies of knowledgetransfer strategies and practices. It addresses the wide range of knowledgetransfer activities undertaken by public research organisations, in additionto IP exploitation and their different effects on innovation in the businesssector. It presents a model of the transition of PROs knowledge transferstrategies from pure technology transfer based only on IP to a broader rolein knowledge transfer and ultimately to a two-way process of knowledgeexchange between PROs and industry and wider society. The reportpresents a number of policy options to support this process.
  • 5. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Table of ContentsSummary 1Report Highlights – Key Findings 51. Introduction 92. Methodology 113. How Innovation Occurs 12 3.1 Models of Innovation 12 3.2 Firms use of external knowledge 14 3.3 Relationships and networks 15 3.4 Patterns of innovation in different sectors 16 3.5 Summary 194. The Role of PROs in Innovation 20 4.1 Knowledge transfer mechanisms 20 4.2 Relative importance of different knowledge transfer mechanisms 23 4.3 Is there any conflict between KT mechanisms? 26 4.4 The effects of knowledge transfer 28 4.5 Summary 305. The Role of Knowledge Transfer Offices 33 5.1 Economic theory underpinning the KTO function 34 5.2 The emergence and expansion of academic KTOs 37 5.3 PRO knowledge transfer strategies 41 5.4 Remit and role of KTOs 44 5.5 Organisational structures and governance 49 5.6 Resources 54 5.7 Costs and benefits of operating KTOs 54 5.8 Assessing performance: knowledge transfer metrics 59 5.9 Good practice 62 5.10 Pan-European knowledge transfer 63 5.11 Summary 656. Analysis 66 6.1 The three phases of development of a PRO knowledge exchange mission 66 6.2 Where are European PROs in the journey? 67 6.3 Barriers to achieving an embedded knowledge exchange mission 697. Summary and Conclusions 72 7.1 Knowledge exchange is required to support innovation 72
  • 6. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________ 7.2 Creating an embedded knowledge exchange mission takes time 74 7.3 Barriers to knowledge exchange remain 758. Policy Options 77Appendix A Glossary 87Appendix B Research Questions and Case Study Sample 88Appendix C Importance of Different KT mechanisms 91Appendix D Taxonomy of Innovation Policies 97Appendix E Analysis of Patenting Patterns of European PROs 99Table of FiguresFigure 1 National innovation systems model ....................................................................14Figure 2 Taxonomy of sector innovation............................................................................18Figure 3 Knowledge transfer mechanisms.........................................................................21Figure 4 Types of knowledge...............................................................................................22Figure 5 Types of knowledge transferred by each KT mechanism.................................22Figure 6 Effects of KT mechanisms .....................................................................................31Figure 7 University patenting 1978-2008 as a percentage of patenting at the USPO ...38Figure 8 Examples of law/regulatory changes enabling knowledge transfer at PROs...................................................................................................................................................40Figure 9 Ownership of IPR in European Universities and other PROs .........................41Figure 10 European countries with legal/ regulatory /policies in place to promote KT...................................................................................................................................................42Figure 11 Responsibilities of KTOs in the sample.............................................................45Figure 12 PROs and the breadth of activity in terms of KT mechanisms ......................48Figure 13 Organisational structures of KTOs ....................................................................49Figure 14 Advantages and disadvantages of KTO organisational structure.................52Figure 15 ASTP survey 2008: percentage of KT outcomes by the leading 10% of PROs...................................................................................................................................................55Figure 16 USA university licensing income (2010) ...........................................................57Figure 17 PRO income from knowledge transfer mechanisms (UK) .............................59Figure 18 Metrics used by the annual UK survey of knowledge transfer in HEIs .......60Figure 19 Newly developed metrics in the Netherlands (not yet implemented) .........61Figure 20 Membership of ProTon Europe by country......................................................63Figure 21 KICs planned activities for innovation support and entrepreneurialism ....64Figure 22 Transition from two to three missions ..............................................................67Figure 23 Glossary of terms..................................................................................................87
  • 7. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 24 Relative importance of KT mechanisms: Industry (Bekkers et al, based ontable 1) ......................................................................................................................................92Figure 25 Relative importance of KT mechanisms: Industry (Cohen et al, based ontable 4) ......................................................................................................................................93Figure 26 Relative importance of KT mechanisms: PRO (Bekkers et al, based on table1) ...............................................................................................................................................95Figure 27 Frequency of KT mechanisms: PRO (Agrawal, based on table 3) ..................96Figure 28 Frequency of KT mechanisms: PRO (Martinelli et al, based on table 3)........96Figure 29 Supply side............................................................................................................97Figure 30 Demand side .........................................................................................................98Figure 31 Top ~100 European Universities, by country.................................................100Figure 32 Applicant search criteria and search results (2000-2010), ‘top’ EuropeanUniversities............................................................................................................................102Figure 33 Total number of patents granted, ‘top’ European Universities by year .....106Figure 34 Total number of patents granted to the ‘top’ European Universities (2000-2010), by IPC Section ............................................................................................................106Figure 35 Total number of patents granted to the ‘top’ European Universities (2000-2010), by IPC Sub-Section ....................................................................................................107Figure 36 Total number of patents granted to the ‘top’ European Universities (2000-2010), by selected IPC Classes.............................................................................................108Figure 37 Total number of patents granted in the ‘top’ IPC classes in 2000-2 and 2008-10.............................................................................................................................................109Figure 38 IPC sub-sections where universities have a high proportion of their patentswithin the category...............................................................................................................111Figure 39 Proportion of institutions with ‘n’ patents in each IPC section ...................112Figure 40 Top-10 patent holders in each IPC Section .....................................................112
  • 8. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________SummaryKnowledge transfer, or more accurately knowledge exchange, between Public ResearchOrganisations (PROs) is not, and should not be, an activity solely focused on the exploitation ofPRO-owned patents PROs have a wider role in innovation systems than simply providing new technologies to individual businesses. They provide access to skilled personnel, assist businesses with short- term problem-solving, support the development of research and innovation capabilities through collaborative working and provide access to new ideas and concepts. In this sense they are engaging in knowledge and not solely technology transfer. In this wider role, a range of different knowledge transfer mechanisms are used to transferand exchange knowledge between PROs and industry including publications, consultancy,contract and collaborative R&D and informal interactions as well as exploiting formal intellectualproperty generated by PRO research. Studies demonstrate that businesses make use of, and value,all such mechanisms. Individual companies tend to make use of several mechanisms with thepattern of use dependent upon the type of knowledge they wish to access, the focus of theirparticular innovation activities and their industrial sector. This wider concept of knowledge exchange is in alignment with the public good role of PROs in society, where that they play an active role in diffusing knowledge to where it can be put to best use. This is not to suggest that the protection and exploitation of formal IP, in the form of patents, has no role to play; in some industrial sectors (such as pharmaceuticals, electronics and telecommunications) patents are essential to innovation, but for many sectors and individual businesses the role of patents is much less important. Furthermore, even where exploiting PRO patents is important, businesses tend to interact with PROs in multiple ways to access the codified and tacit knowledge needed for technology commercialisation. In fact many cases PRO patents are licensed to businesses with which a longer-term and relationship has already been established. As a result, maximising income to PROs from IP should not be the focus of knowledge exchange activities. Firstly, this is in opposition to the public good role of PROs, and therefore IP exploitation via patents should only be undertaken where this is essential to allow businesses to undertake further development and commercialisation activities. Secondly, very few KTOs are able to generate a surplus from their IP activities. The experience of the last 20 years, in the USA and Europe, has demonstrated that the majority of the IP income is generated by a very small number of internationally renowned research intensive PROs. Therefore the over-arching aim of knowledge exchange is proactive knowledge diffusion and public policy needs to enable and support PROs in this role.PROs in Europe are on a journey towards establishing a fully embedded culture of knowledgeexchangeThis journey consists of three phases: Stage 1: Establishing framework conditions – the creation of formal policy support for knowledge exchange and not technology transfer. This typically occurs at national and/or regional level. At a policy-making level this requires the removal of legal and regulatory barriers to knowledge exchange (where they exist) and the establishment of a strong policy position with respect to knowledge exchange between PROs and industry. 1
  • 9. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________ Stage 2: Policy implementation – the development and implementation of knowledge exchange strategies, institutional policies, processes and governance structures at individual PROs. This includes, but is not limited to, the creation of a professional support office and the recruitment of professional knowledge exchange staff. Stage 3: Embedding knowledge exchange mission – consolidating the knowledge exchange mission and embedding a knowledge exchange culture across the PRO, with appropriate incentives and rewards for PRO staff to deliver on all three institutional missions that is: teaching; research and knowledge exchange. Currently European and individual PROs are at different places on the journey and therefore are many opportunities for later adopters to access good practice and learn from more experienced PROs and policy-makers.Policy optionsA. Commission Communication on Knowledge ExchangeThe Commission and Council policy recommendations on knowledge transfer 1 were published 4-5years ago and it is timely, in light of the policy developments of Innovation Union andHorizon2020, and the degree of variability of practice across Member States to increase awarenessof, and place much greater emphasis on, the importance of knowledge exchange rather thantechnology transfer and to update and improve policy recommendations.B. Greater Use of Structural Funds to Support the Development of Capacities for KnowledgeExchangeWhile structural funds already have a focus on innovation, DG Regio could be encouraged to placea much greater emphasis on the development of knowledge exchange capabilities and capacitieswithin regional PROs and to ensure that regional innovation strategies avoid the technologytransfer paradigm. This support should also ensure that policy-makers and PROs in laggingcountries are able to maximise opportunities to learn from experienced countries.C. Support for Sharing Good PracticeEarly adopters have gained considerable experience in knowledge exchange and while there is noone-size-fits-all approach to knowledge exchange strategies and operations, there is a wealth ofgood practice across Europe. This needs to be identified and made more widely available,particularly to the lagging countries to enable them to climb the learning curve faster: Public financial support for the identification, collection and pro-active dissemination of good practice widely across the EU with a particular focus on improving lagging countries. Widening the provision of professional networks in knowledge exchange to meet the needs of different types of PRO, from the research intensive to the more regional less research-intensive institutions. This might be achieved through providing public financial support for extending the reach of existing networking organisations or supporting the creation of new organisations to meet the specific needs of different types of PROs. Public financial support to individual PROs in the process of establishing knowledge exchange missions to access good practice ‘hands-on’ through visiting established professional knowledge exchange offices, developing relationships with more experienced players and acquiring professional mentors.1 COM (2007) 182 final & COM(2008) 1329 2
  • 10. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________D. Pan-European Knowledge ExchangeMaximising learning for pan-European knowledge exchange from the Framework Programme andKnowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the EIT. A study to identify and disseminate best practice in pan-European knowledge exchange with a particular focus on the Framework Programmes – to identify, for example, good practice in contracts and collaboration agreements to act as exemplars for future partnerships. The KICs have been fully operational for a relatively short period of time and therefore information on their practical experience in pan-European knowledge exchange is only just becoming available. It is timely for the Commission to implement a process to regularly monitor and review the knowledge exchange strategies and processes of the KICs in order to: ensure they have appropriate strategies and processes, to identify good practice, and identify an unforeseen implications for the participating organisations.E. Incorporate Advice on Changing Academic Career Structures in CommissionCommunications on Higher Education The Commission as a catalytic actor in the higher education arena is able to influence HEIs (in particular) and therefore future Commission Communications on higher education should include recommendations on need for academic reward and recognition systems to encompass the three institutional missions – education, research and knowledge exchange. The European Charter for Researchers could also be amended accordingly. Furthermore the Commission could fund activities to identify and disseminate good practice in academic career structures at both institutional and national levels. Similarly processes to assess and assure PRO quality should encompass the three missions. This could then be used not only to accredit institutions but also to inform funding allocations as part of a process that balances core, competitive and performance-based funding allocations.F. Coordinate and Promote the Development of Professional Career Structures for KTO StaffA number of processes are underway to develop and accredit a career structure for KTO staff andprovide accredited continuing professional development at both national level (e.g. IKT in the UK),European (ASTP, ProTon, EuKTS) and international level (Alliance of Technology TransferProfessionals, ATTP). EuKTS, an OMC Net activity under Framework 7, is developing anaccreditation system for knowledge exchange it comes to an end in March 2012 and theCommission needs to ensure that its outputs are promoted and disseminated widely.G. Monitor and Measure Knowledge Exchange at a European LevelMeasurement of knowledge exchange is currently too heavily focused on metrics that assess theexploitation of IP and furthermore very few data are collected at a European level. Collectingstatistics not only facilitates monitoring and analysis but also establishes a subject as important andso drives behaviour. The Commission could initiate a regular survey of PROs to collect data onknowledge exchange activities and outputs. This would build on the experience developed in anumber of early adopter countries in terms of a broader set of metrics and in implementing regularsurveys to collect them. It should aim to reach a significant proportion of the broad range ofEuropean PROs across all Members States. 3
  • 11. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________H. Monitor and Review Industrial Participation in Horizon 2020The Parliament needs to monitor and review participation in order to ensure that all possiblemeasures are being taken to increase industrial participation in Horizon 2020.I. Open Access to Horizon 2020 Research OutputsPublication remains an extremely important knowledge exchange mechanism for industry toaccess PRO generated knowledge. However academic publications remain beyond the reach ofmany businesses behind the firewalls of academic publishers. For publicly funded research outputsthere is a strong argument that this should not be the case and that an open access approach topublication is more appropriate. The concept of Open Access is featured in the current proposedRegulation of the European Parliament and of the Council ‘laying down the rules for theparticipation and dissemination in Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research andInnovation (2014-2020)’ 2 and it should be endorsed by the Parliament.2 COM(2011) 810 final 2011/0399 (COD), November 2011 4
  • 12. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Report Highlights – Key FindingsThe taxpayer funds Public Research Organisations (PROs), that is universities and researchinstitutes, as an investment in the production of knowledge on behalf of society. This report,commissioned by STOA, focuses on the role of PRO Knowledge Transfer Offices in knowledgetransfer and exchange between researchers and potential users of knowledge in pursuit oftechnological and economic impact. The study is focused in particular on knowledge transfer toindustry.Innovation and the role of PROs Innovation models have developed over the last few decades from relatively simple linear innovation models that regard PROs as providers of new technologies to businesses who go to commercialise them, to more complex innovation systems of networked innovation actors in the private and public sectors supported by a range of institutional frameworks and infrastructures such as financial environments, IP structures and culture. Businesses are the main actors in innovation; with innovation a process of continuous interaction and feedbacks between perceptions of market opportunities, technological capabilities, and learning processes. Within the innovation system, businesses make use of a wide range of inputs to innovation; both from internal sources - that are much wider than just in-house R&D, and from external sources – most typically from their suppliers and also from customers. PROs are just one source among many external inputs to firms’ innovation processes and, in general, they are used to a much lesser extent than other sources. Different sectors innovate in different ways and some sectors are more predisposed to work with PROs than others  Businesses in science-based sectors such as pharmaceuticals, electronics, chemicals and materials, rely on fundamental developments in basic science and as a result have the closest ties with PROs. These sectors also tend to make use of formal intellectual property to protect their innovations.  Other sectors rely to a greater extent on their suppliers and customers for their innovation inputs and make use of a range of mechanisms for protection such as copyright, trademarks, secrecy, internal know-how and technological leadership as well as leadership in professional skills such as design, marketing and advertising.Knowledge transfer mechanisms In an innovation system PROs have a wider role than simply providing new technologies and ideas to businesses - assisting with short-term problem-solving as well as supporting the development of research and innovation skills and capabilities through transferring complex codified and tacit new knowledge to businesses. A range of different knowledge transfer mechanisms are used to transfer knowledge from PROs to industry including publications, consultancy, contract and collaborative R&D, informal interactions and exploiting PRO generated IP. Industry makes use of and values all mechanisms to differing degrees. Individual companies tend to make use of several mechanisms depending on the type of knowledge they wish to access and focus of their innovation activities. Different knowledge transfer mechanisms transfer different types of knowledge – with publications and patents transferring codified (written) knowledge and more interactive mechanisms, such as contract and collaborative R&D, transferring both codified and tacit knowledge (know-how, skills). Industry ranks knowledge transfer in order of importance as follows 5
  • 13. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________  The traditional published academic outputs such as journal articles, conference proceedings and books  Informal interactions including interactions at conferences, seminars and via professional associations as well as personal contacts and relationships  More in depth research relationships – including contract research, consultancy, collaborative R&D and accessing research skills (through funding PhDs etc.)  Exploiting PRO IP through licensing patents, copyright etc. Exploiting IP through formal transactions alone is generally considered to be of lesser importance by industry. It is relatively more important to the science-based sectors such as pharmaceuticals, electronics, chemicals and materials. Nevertheless, these sectors also make wide use of other knowledge transfer mechanisms to improve their knowledge base and develop long-term relationships with relevant academics and departments. Codified knowledge alone is generally insufficient for commercialising IP. The patented technology is usually very early stage and further input from researchers is required to support its commercial development. As a result, licence agreements are typically supported by other knowledge transfer mechanisms such as consultancy, contract and collaborative R&D to access the skills and tacit knowledge required to fully understand and develop the technology. In general, the different knowledge transfer mechanisms are complementary rather than substitutes. IP exploitation leads predominantly to benefits in individual businesses. The more collaborative methods result in wider benefits to society, not only increasing the potential for knowledge creation and spillovers, but also developing the longer-term relationships essential to a well-functioning innovation system.Knowledge transfer offices Across Europe, innovation policy emphasises the role of PROs, assigning them a ‘third mission’ to support innovation in addition to their core missions of education and research. Early innovation policy, based on the linear model, saw PROs primarily as providers of research outputs in the form of IP. This led to the development of Technology Transfer Offices with the role of protecting, licensing and commercialising PRO-generated IP. The development of the systems models of innovation and the practical experience of PROs has led to a broader understanding of the role of PROs and the development of Knowledge Transfer Offices (KTOs) to support knowledge rather than simply technology transfer. The role of KTOs in the innovation systems is to reduce the transaction costs of transferring uncertain and often un-codifiable knowledge from PROs to industry by  Bridging the cultural barriers between PRO researchers and industry  Professionalising the interactions and relationships  Helping PROs to become essential components of an inter-connected innovation system. As a result very few PROs have KTOs that focus solely on IP exploitation. The role of KTOs is, instead, to maximise the volume and impact of KT activities carried by academic staff through the professionalisation of the industrial interface and the widening of academic participation in knowledge transfer activities. Most European PROs have institutional strategies that explicitly include a knowledge transfer mission, with a member of the PRO leadership team, usually the vice-rector (or equivalent) for research, allocated responsibility for knowledge transfer and an expectation that academic staff will increasingly engage in knowledge transfer activities. 6
  • 14. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________ KTOs are structured in a number of ways, but a model that ensures a common mission for the KTO and academics while enabling a degree of autonomy to act is essential. Physical and intellectual proximity to researchers is more important that the actual organisational structure. It is important that KTOs do not become a barrier to knowledge transfer. This can occur if, for example, they take an overly protective position on IP. A knowledge transfer profession has been developing over the last 10-15 years, with KTOs increasingly staffed by knowledge transfer professionals. These are typically people with research backgrounds (often a PhD) and relevant business experience and/or specific professional experience in areas such as intellectual property, finance and marketing and communications In terms of income very few KTOs generate a surplus from their IP activities. Early adopters of innovation/technology transfer policy saw IP commercialisation as a source of revenue for PROs, and therefore a route to creating self-funded KTOs, but this has not come to pass. Other KT mechanisms, such as consultancy and contract/collaborative R&D, while generating important income from the PRO do not generate revenue directly to fund the KTOs.Creating an embedded culture of knowledge transfer/exchange takestime The development of a third mission for PROs takes time and countries and individual PROs are on a journey, with each country and PRO at different stages. The aim is to create a functioning innovation system that contains pro-active and well-connected PROs with appropriate and effective knowledge exchange strategies and processes (including KTOs). Achieving this requires significant cultural as well as strategic and operational changes within PROs. This journey consists of three phases:  Stage 1: Establishing framework conditions – the creation of formal policy support for knowledge (and not technology) transfer. This typically occurs at national and/or regional level. At a policy-making level this requires the removal of legal and regulatory barriers to knowledge transfer (where they exist) and the establishment of a strong policy position with respect to knowledge transfer and exchange between PROs and industry (and other potential users of PRO-generated knowledge).  Stage 2: Policy implementation – the development and implementation of knowledge transfer strategies, institutional policies, processes and governance structures at PROs – all of which should be closely aligned with the research mission. This includes the creation of a Knowledge Transfer Office (KTO) and the recruitment of professional knowledge transfer staff. Strategies and activities will acknowledge that academic staff are at the heart of knowledge transfer and put processes in place, such as training and awareness raising, to encourage and enable their participation in knowledge transfer.  Stage 3: Embedding knowledge exchange mission – consolidating the knowledge exchange mission and embedding a knowledge exchange culture across the PRO and developing an outward-looking and entrepreneurial culture throughout the PRO, with appropriate incentives and rewards for academics and KTO staff and, over time, embedding the PRO within appropriate professional, sector and disciplinary networks. The majority of European countries have reached phase 1 but their individual PROs are in various stages of development in phase 2. No European PROs can be considered to have fully reached phase 3 but a number of PROs in the early-adopting countries are getting close to that point. Achieving a fully embedded knowledge transfer mission will take considerable time – behavioural and cultural change is a notoriously slow process and there is still resistance to change among the academic community. Even amongst the early-adopters of knowledge transfer there is still a long way to go before the third mission is a truly embedded feature of PROs. 7
  • 15. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Barriers to fully embedding a culture of knowledge exchange remainEven for those countries that have made significant progress in knowledge transfer, to achieve afully embedded knowledge exchange mission in PROs a number of remaining challenges need tobe overcome: An over-focus on technology (IP-based) transfer can hinder knowledge transfer between PROs and businesses. The knowledge transfer, as opposed to solely technology transfer role of PROs is not fully recognised in all relevant policy. IP exploitation needs to be acknowledged as just one element in knowledge transfer – more suitable for some PROs and some sectors than others. Policies that regard income from IP as a key output of knowledge transfer tend to lead to KTO incentive structures that present additional barriers to the flow and exchange of knowledge and the building of relationships between PROs and industry. A lack of well-defined metrics for knowledge transfer. Linked to the point above is the fact that metrics to assess KTO performance and impact remain focused on technology transfer outputs – numbers of invention disclosures, patents filed and approved, licence agreements and licence income, etc. This is due, in part, to the initial focus on technology transfer but also the convenience of measuring outputs that are easily identifiable and countable. Better metrics are being implemented in some countries and the good practice could be shared. Lack of the culture of knowledge transfer within the academic community. A key issue in developing a truly embedded knowledge exchange culture is the structure of career development paths for academics. In the majority of PROs recognition and reward systems for academics remain based on the two traditional missions of education and research, resulting in no incentives, in career terms, to engage in knowledge transfer. This means that, at present, only those academics personally motivated to work with businesses do so. Again, a small number of PROs are starting to address this. Recruiting and retaining professional knowledge transfer staff. Despite the development and growth of a knowledge transfer profession, PROs still experience difficulties recruiting and retaining KTO staff. While in many countries the pool of KT professionals is still relatively small, the more significant issue is the ability to reward staff appropriately. It is common practice in several European countries for KTO staff to be regarded as part of the PRO’s administrative structure. This can place restrictions on a PRO’s ability to pay appropriate salaries to attract and retain high quality staff with both academic and business experience. Cross-border knowledge transfer. Differences in knowledge transfer strategies and policies at national and PRO level can impede contract negotiations for cross-border knowledge transfer, particularly where several PROs are working together with businesses in joint R&D activities. IP arrangements are often a cause of contention in R&D contract negotiations, slowing down the process and delaying the start of research activities. Best practice is not shared as widely as it could be. Considerable experience has been gained in the early-adopting countries and PROs but this is not being shared as widely as it could be to enable later adopters to benefit. As the countries and their PROs implement knowledge transfer and exchange policies and as they move from phase 1 to phase 2 (and later to phase 3) opportunities for them to learn from earlier experience would enable them to avoid pitfalls and climb the learning curve much more quickly. Accessing good practice will enable them to reach an embedded third mission as quickly and effectively as possible. 8
  • 16. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________1. IntroductionThe taxpayer funds Public Research Organisations (PROs), that is universities and researchinstitutes, as an investment in the production of knowledge on behalf of society. This report,commissioned by STOA, focuses on the role of PRO Knowledge Transfer Offices in knowledgetransfer and exchange between researchers and potential users of knowledge in pursuit oftechnological and economic impact. The study is focused in particular on knowledge transfer toindustry.The role of universities has evolved and expanded throughout their existence, from the scholarlypursuits of the medieval universities, the education of professionals in the 19th century and a muchincreased research role in the 20th century. In the broadest sense the role of universities is toproduce knowledge and to make it available to society. Throughout 20th century universities havebeen responsible for two core missions: providing higher-level education and conducting research,and making the knowledge generated available to society through their graduates and thetraditional published outputs of scholarship and research. In more recent times there has been amove towards a more pro-active interaction between universities and society to assist the transferof knowledge from universities to society. The addition of this so-called ‘third mission’ has beendriven largely by innovation policy at the national, regional and European level and, as a result,has focused in particular on the industrial exploitation of the outputs from science and engineeringresearch in pursuit of economic growth.Innovation policy has also been directed at public research institutes and laboratories, which arealso expected to engage more actively with society through putting in place structures andprocesses to transfer their research-generated knowledge to industry, primarily, but also to otherusers.This report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 describes the methodology of the study. Chapter 3 presents a review of the innovation studies literature to describe how innovation occurs and the differences in innovation processes in different sectors. Theses differences are important to understanding the extent to which different sectors interact with PROs and the methods they use to interact. Chapter 4 addresses the role of PROs in innovation. It describes the different mechanisms by which PROs engage with industry to transfer and exchange knowledge and the relative importance to industry of different knowledge transfer mechanisms – both in general and for different sectors. Chapter 5 looks at the role of Knowledge Transfer Offices (KTOs) within PROs more specifically - in terms of both economic theory and the actual practice of knowledge transfer in European and USA KTOs. Chapter 6 provides an analysis of the findings, presenting a descriptive model of a three-stage process to develop knowledge transfer or ‘third’ missions in PROs. It also describes the key barriers to achieving effective knowledge transfer missions in PROs. Chapter 7 presents the summary and conclusions of the study. Chapter 8 presents policy options to overcome the barriers to knowledge transfer from PROs and ensure the widest uptake of a third mission across European PROs. 9
  • 17. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________A note on the text: Throughout the report we mostly use the term ‘Knowledge Transfer Office’ or‘KTO’ to denote the office within a PRO that is responsible for both technology transfer (based onthe exploitation of formal intellectual property) as well as wider forms of knowledge transfer (asdescribed in Chapter 4). When it is more appropriate to do so, we use the more specific term‘Technology Transfer Office’ or ‘TTO’. This is usually the case when referring to such offices in theUSA where typically they only focus on technology transfer or when referring to some of the olderEuropean PROs, whose early offices were also only focused on technology transfer. 10
  • 18. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________2. MethodologyThe study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1 a literature review of the published and greyliterature on technology transfer from PROs and an analysis of the patterns of patenting inEuropean PROs were conducted. The literature review identified that the role of PROs ininnovation is much broader than the concept of technology transfer – where technology transfer isdefined as the exploitation of formal intellectual property generated by PROs from their researchactivities. Therefore to better understand the full extent of the role of PROs in the innovation it wasnecessary to broaden the remit of the study to encompass the transfer of knowledge in the broadestsense rather than focus only on the transfer of formal intellectual property.Phase 1 generated a series of research questions to investigate this wider role of PROs in knowledgetransfer and exchange. These were addressed through the development of detailed case studies of theknowledge transfer practices of 22 PROs, 19 in Europe and three in the USA, plus additional deskresearch and literature reviews. The research questions and case study sample of PROs areprovided in Appendix A. 11
  • 19. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________3. How Innovation Occurs3.1 Models of InnovationNew knowledge plays an important role in innovation and therefore understanding how newknowledge flows in the economy and how to make best use of knowledge is important to thedevelopment of appropriate innovation policies.Early innovation policy was grounded in the conceptualisation of innovation as a linear processwhereby scientific knowledge generated from basic research, typically conducted within PROs(science push version), gives rise to new technologies that are incorporated into innovativeproducts, processes and services which, in turn, are exploited in economic activities. Alternativelythe model is conceptualised in reverse whereby market forces (market pull version) pull throughthe outputs of basic research to meet market needs. In the linear model PROs, and the outputs oftheir activities in basic research, are key actors in the innovation process typically portrayed as theinstigators of innovation through their development of new technologies.However, empirical research over many years and in many sectors has demonstrated that thelinear model does not adequately explain how innovation occurs in practice. Innovation, accordingto these studies, is a complex, non-linear and risky process, involving multiple feedback routesbetween processes, functions and people both internal and external to the firm. Innovation may betriggered, for example, not only by technological advances and market forces but also by users andconsumers. 3Various alternative models of innovation have been developed to encompass the complexity ofinnovation in place of the linear model. The chain-linked model 4 highlights the role of design ininnovation as well as the paths by which both internally and externally generated knowledge flowsbetween the various stages of a firm’s innovation activities - research, design and test, productionand marketing. Compared to the linear model, the chain-linked model includes various feedbacksbetween different innovation activities and as such describes a much more complex innovationprocess. More recently the open innovation 5 model has conceptualised a more fluid processwhereby a firm not only relies on both external as well as internal knowledge and expertise forinnovative activities but also allows the knowledge it generates to flow outwards to those who canmake best use of it. The assumption being that high-quality knowledge, useful to firms, isabundant and widespread and that firms (including those with sophisticated R&D departments)cannot possibly ‘own’ all the knowledge they require and should identify and utilise relevantknowledge from all sources. In particular it focuses on the concept of fluid or more openboundaries between the firm and other knowledge providers, enabling it to widen its ‘search’activity through working in collaboration with others or buying or licensing in new technologies.However, a firm, according to this model, resorts to external knowledge only as and when needed.3 See, for instance, Jan Faberber, A Guide to the Literature, in: Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery and Richard R. Nelson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 2005; Benoît Godin, The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework, Project on the History and Sociology and S&T Statistics. Working Paper No. 30, 2005, www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_30.pdf; and, Roy Rothwell, Towards the Fifth-generation Innovation Process International Marketing Review, 11 (1), 1994, 7-314 S. J. Kline & N. Rosenberg, An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 19865 Henry W. Chesbrough, The Era of Open Innovation, Sloan Management Review, 44 (3), 2003, 447-485 and Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation, in: Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Joel West (eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 1-10 12
  • 20. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________The systems of innovation approach takes a wider viewpoint, seeking to explain the process ofinnovation and its dynamics in a systemic context and can be conceptualised and deployed at arange of different levels - national, regional and sectoral. 6 The model proposes that successfulinnovation depends on well-established relationships and close interaction between an innovativecompany and a number of external organisations involved in the innovation process and an‘institutional’ environment conducive to innovation. As illustrated in Figure 1, externalorganisations include other firms (of suppliers, customers or competitors), universities, publicresearch institutes and public innovation agencies. While the term ‘institutions’ refers to the ‘basicrules of the game’ as well as the broad legal framework and norms - it also includes commonhabits, routines and practices governing structures (e.g., financial institutions) or concrete entities(e.g., the Bank of England) as well as structures and forces enabling, or constraining complexinteractions between actors. 7The linear model of innovation is now viewed largely as a simplification of a much more complexprocess, and the alternative models each have their place as tools to help understand and describehow innovation occurs within businesses (e.g. the chain-linked model) or at the national orregional level (e.g. systems of innovation) or as models for businesses implement (e.g. openinnovation). There is no one size fits all model for all purposes. However from a policy perspectivethe innovation systems model are useful tools to help policy-makers analyse an innovation system(at national, regional or supra-national level) to determine where policy can improve itsfunctionality.Importantly, these models of innovation place businesses firmly at the centre, as the main actorsin innovation. Businesses understand both their current markets and their own technologicalcapabilities and skills and, therefore, are in a position to be able identify market needs and act toadapt, innovate and change to meet those needs. In these models, and inside real firms, innovationinvolves continuous interaction and feedbacks between perceptions of market opportunities,technological capabilities, and learning processes within firms. Research and development is oftennot the source of innovation – business R&D or otherwise - as firms aim to innovate by exploitingtheir existing technological capabilities and knowledge assets. In this scenario research anddevelopment plays a different role, not acting as a stimulus of innovation but providing a problem-solving capability within a wider innovation activity. In some more technological sectors R&D mayalso serve to identify problems that need solving (and once solved will be beneficial to customers).Therefore, the ‘research’ function within firms can be viewed more as a ‘search’ function, lookingfor internal and external problems to solve and so providing opportunities for innovation.6 Ake-Bengt Lundvall, National Innovation System: Analytical Focusing Device and Policy Learning Tool, Working Paper R2007:004, Ostersund: ITPS, Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies, 2007; and, OECD, National Innovation Systems, Paris: OECD Publications, 1997 Hans-Joachim Braczyk, Philip N. Cooke and Martin Hedenreich (eds.), Regional innovation systems: the role of governances in a globalized world, London: UCL Press, 1998 Franco Malerba (ed), Sectoral Systems of Innovation: concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20047 Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990; Charles Edquist, The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account of the state of the art, Paper presented at the Nelson and Winter DRUID Summer Conference, Aalborg Congress Center, Aalborg, Denmark, 12-15 June, 2001; Richard R. Nelson, What enables rapid economic progress: What are the needed institutions, Research Policy 37 (1), 2008, 1-11. 13
  • 21. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 1 National innovation systems model 83.2 Firms use of external knowledgeFirms’ links to external knowledge sources enables them to both explore possibilities for innovationand to exploit knowledge to improve existing technologies, products and processes. Relationshipswith external sources are particularly important for accessing tacit knowledge - the knowledge thatis not codified in documents (manuals, reports, scientific papers, patents etc.) and that embodiesknow-how, skills and expertise. 9 Tacit knowledge is not only important for its own sake, i.e. wherecodified knowledge does not exist, but is often an essential supplement to codified knowledge – toenable a full understanding of the information contained in a publication or patent or, moreimportantly, to facilitate the practical implementation of the knowledge in a different context.Furthermore tacit knowledge tends to be ‘sticky’ in that it does not flow readily between people. Itmay require demonstration, hands-on training or experience, and generally involves closeinteractions between individual knowledge holders (e.g. researchers at PROs) and potential newusers (e.g. staff in businesses).8 Erik Arnold and Stefan Kuhlman, RCN in the Norwegian Research and Innovation System, Background Report No 12 in the Evaluation of the Research Council of Norway, Oslo: Royal Norwegian Ministry for Education, Research and Church Affairs, 2001. Also available at www.technopolis-group.com9 See, for instance, Eric von Hippel, Sticky Information’ and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation, Management Science, 40 (4), 1994, 429-439; and Shaker A. Zahra and Gerard George, Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization and extension, Academy of Management Review, 27 (2), 2002, 185-203 14
  • 22. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Firms can take in the required knowledge from wherever it can be found – in the open innovationmodel, for example, firms explicitly recognise that more knowledge resides outside the firm thancan possibly reside within it and deliberately pursue that knowledge in conjunction with others.The source of any new knowledge is not a matter of great importance to the firm and solvinginnovation-related problems will require accessing knowledge and skills from outside the firm.Furthermore both knowledge and innovation capabilities are cumulative, building and growingover time and internal business R&D, while not universal, increases a firm’s absorptive capacity, 10 i.e.its ability to access and assimilate external knowledge. Firms that do R&D internally are thereforealso better equipped that others to make use of external knowledge.3.3 Relationships and networksTo reach their innovation and growth related objectives, firms engage in several types ofrelationships with external sources of knowledge, be they other firms (suppliers, customers, serviceproviders) or governmental and other organisations including universities and research institutesbut also organisations such as regulatory bodies. 11 These relationships can be close or loose, formalor informal; they may be an extension of existing relationships with suppliers and customers orthey may involve additional resources and activities to expand opportunities for accessingpotential inputs to their innovation activities.Proximity facilitates the development of relationships between firms and their external sources ofinformation. Geographic proximity, for instance, enhances ‘togetherness’ and exchanges, while‘cognitive’ proximity (i.e. a common knowledge base encompassing diverse but complementarycapabilities) facilitates interactive learning, and, thus, innovation. 12Geographic proximity is the basis of sector or technology based clusters or industrial districts ofinterdependent firms and other organisations such as PROs, technology intermediaries such asRTOs, regulatory bodies. In clusters, formal and informal rules and enforcement procedures (thatis, institutions) exist to regulate the activities of, and the flow of knowledge and informationbetween, the cluster members. Formal relationships may be embodied in contracts – purchases,joint ventures, employment contracts etc. – while informal rules may reside in social norms thatguide behaviour or influence levels of secrecy or openness in inter-firm relationships. Networks, bycontrast, are more flexible structures bringing together both organisations and individuals withoverlapping and complementary capabilities, and they may be defined by geography and/orcognitive proximity. Networks are largely based on openness, reciprocity and interdependence aswell as on a common identity, reputation and trust rather than on formal rules and enforcementmechanisms. 1310 Cohen et al, and Daniel A. Levinthal, Innovation and learning: The two phases of R&D, the Economic Journal, 99, 1989, 569-596, 1989; and Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 1990, 128-15211 Frank Moulaert and Farid Sekia, Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey, Regional Studies, 37 (3), 2003, 289-30212 Ron A. Boschma, Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment, Regional Studies, 39 (1), 61-74, 200513 Walter W. Powell and Steine Grodal, Networks of Innovators, in: Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery and Richard R. Nelson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 2005, 56-85 15
  • 23. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________The literature reviewed points to considerable knowledge related benefits for firms and theirinnovativeness resulting from their participation in clusters and networks. These structuresfacilitate firms’ access to new information and knowledge, including tacit knowledge, at a rapidpace and a lower cost. They also provide firms with access to human capital, namely skilleduniversity graduates and researchers, which allows firms to acquire tacit knowledge. These, inturn, strengthen the knowledge base of firms, enhance their capacity to innovate and encourage thediffusion of innovation as well.The existence of industrial districts and clusters, and their corresponding knowledge bases, islargely dependent on historical patterns of industrial development at the national and regionallevel, while levels of interaction, openness and exchange will be influenced by national, sector anddisciplinary cultures and traditions. Therefore a firm’s ability to take advantage of the knowledgeopportunities offered by clusters and networks is dependent to some extent on its geographicalcontext (its national or regional system of innovation) and its sector and technological basis.3.4 Patterns of innovation in different sectorsThe systems of innovation approach has been applied at the sector level enabling the identificationof different approaches to innovation. Empirical work in the 1980s assessing sources and flows ofinnovation, as well as the characteristics of innovating firms identified five distinct patterns ofinnovation behaviour at the sector level. 14 A significant feature of the patterns is that sources oftechnology not only vary by sector, but that technology, (embodied in innovative products) flowswithin and between sectors, reflecting the diverse ways in which technologies are created anddiffused through the economy.The work resulted in the definition of a sector innovation taxonomy based upon four key features:sources of technical change; focus of innovative activity (e.g. product or process innovation); size ofinnovating firms; and the means of appropriation of the benefits of investments in innovation. Thefive categories of the taxonomy are described in Figure 2. It is intended as a useful analytical tooland although examples of sectors in each category are given it does not imply that all firms in thosesectors necessarily correspond to that category or that all firms in a sector are innovation active.Importantly, Figure 2 shows that most categories rely to a great extent on incremental change andthe accumulation of technological skills and know-how over time. The sources of innovationinputs are varied, coming from a range of sources both internal and external to the firm, typicallyfrom in-house production engineering and design and from external suppliers and users, with veryfew relying on in-house or external R&D. Furthermore, a range of different methods are used inacross the categories to appropriate innovations, including secrecy and in-house know-how as wellas formal intellectual property such as patents, trademarks and copyright.Only one category, science-based firms, has a strong reliance on fundamental developments inbasic science and as a consequence reasonably close ties with PROs. These are also the firms thatmost frequently make use of formal intellectual property, in the form of patents, as a key tool toprotect innovations to ensure competitive advantage and ensure the recovery of R&D investments.Therefore this category not only most closely matches the linear model of innovation, it also alignswith the early concepts of technology transfer from PROs via patents and licensing. This categoryincludes sectors such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals and parts of electronics.14 Original study: Pavitt, K. (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory, Research Policy, Vol. 13, pp.343-373. This work was updated and modified in 2001: Tidd, J., Bessant, J. & Pavitt K., (2001) Managing innovation integrating technological, market and organisational change. 2nd ed. Wiley, Chapter 5 16
  • 24. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________PRO spin-outs, based on intellectual property developed in PROs, typically fall into the specialisedsupplier category (at least initially) supplying technology, instrumentation, or new materials, forexample, to their customers and supporting the innovation processes in other sectors. This is not tosay that truly disruptive game-changing innovations, which might be developed by spinouts, donot occur. However, in practice such innovations are much more infrequent than is generallybelieved.Companies in other sectors rely on external inputs from PROs to a much lesser extent. Scale-intensive sectors such as automotive, bulk materials and consumer durables focus on both processand product innovation and may seek external inputs when internal skills and knowledge are notsufficient. Change tends to be incremental as significant investments in plant and products havealready been made and therefore interactions with PROs, where they occur, are more likely toinvolve engineering departments, applied science and perhaps business schools to solve existingproblems and to widen their search for relevant future developments. These firms will also benefitfrom innovations developed by their supply-chain who may themselves interact with PROs todevelop and improve instrumentation for example. Similarly, firms in the supplier-dominatedcategory, by definition, rely on their supply-chain for innovations and they may well also benefitfrom their suppliers’ interactions with PROs. 17
  • 25. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment ____________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 2 Taxonomy of sector innovation 15 Main sources of technical Means ofCategory change Focus of innovative activity Size of innovating firms appropriationSupplier-  Suppliers Main focus is process Firms are typically small and Appropriation is rarelydominated  Production learning innovation in pursuit of cost found within traditional based on technological reductions manufacturing sectors such advantage but instead Firms are almost entirely Innovation strategy is to use to as textiles, agriculture and on professional skills: dependent on their suppliers of technology from elsewhere to services  Design machinery and other production inputs for new support competitive  Trademark technologies advantage.  Advertising Limited in-house innovation Process innovations are  Marketing activity is undertaken but some created in supply sectors and learning from in-house embedded within the inputs production activities to productionScale-  Production engineering Both product and process Firms are characterised by Appropriation by:intensive  Production learning innovation but a significant large-scale mass production  Process secrecy and focus on production where significant economies know-how  Design office improvements. Innovation of scale and division of  May include in-house R&D  Technical leadership strategy is focused on labour are present.  Suppliers incremental improvements as  Some patenting The products & production Innovations are largely implementing radical change systems are complex developed in-house, which on complex products and integrations of technologies. may include an internal R&D. processes is highly risky Sectors include: automobiles, Some innovation also sourced extraction & processing of from specialised suppliers of bulk materials & consumer equipment and components durablesSpecialised-  Design function Innovation focused on They are generally small in Appropriation bysuppliers  Operational knowledge product performance size, manufacturing high-  Design know-how improvements. These performance inputs to other  Input from advanced users  Relationships with, improvements are often complex products and and knowledge of developed to meet the high production processes – users specification requirements of inputs such as machinery, key users. They are later components,  Some use of patents transferred to other users instrumentation and softwareScience-based  In-house R&D Focus on product innovation Innovation is highly Appropriation by:  Basic research from external where fundamental dependent on developments  R&D know-how sources discoveries (in basic science) in the relevant science base  Patents lead to new products and and new products are  Input from advanced users  Process secrecy and markets and corresponding diffused widely as consumer These firms invest heavily in new production and goods or inputs to other know-how internal R&D to create organisational processes sectors  Internal dynamic innovative new products and Innovation strategy requires Firms are typically large and learning have close ties to the research monitoring and exploiting in sectors such as base to access new knowledge, developments from the pharmaceuticals, chemicals, skills and techniques research base electronics, materialsInformation-  In-house systems & software The focus of innovation is to Firms are in service sectors Appropriation by:intensive departments improve, and even redefine, that rely heavily on  Process know-how  Suppliers methods of service delivery technology to process large  Software IP and to create entirely new quantities of information for Innovation comes from internal (copyright) service products efficient and effective service and external sources, and is  System design delivery: sectors such as based on IT hardware know-how finance, retail, insurance, improvements, software travel and publishing, developments and systems telecoms integration 15 Pavitt, K. (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory, Research Policy, Vol. 13, pp.343-373; Tidd, J., Bessant, J. & Pavitt K., (2001) Managing innovation integrating technological, market and organisational change. 2nd ed. Wiley, Chapter 5 18
  • 26. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Sources of external knowledge are varied and evidence suggests that inter-firm co-operation is themost important channel for knowledge acquisition, exchange and sharing and that a firm’scustomers, suppliers and competitors, rather than PROs, are the most dominant externalknowledge sources cited by businesses. The data from the Community Innovation Survey reinforcethis point, with universities and public research organisations being cited as sources of knowledgeor information for innovation activities by only 15% of firms and cited as a ‘highly important’source by less than 6% of firms. 16 Furthermore, only a small proportion collaborate with PROs on aregular basis and, as the sectoral models of innovation illustrates, the firms that do make use ofknowledge from PROs are more likely to come from some sectors than others.3.5 Summary How innovation occurs  Businesses are the main actors in innovation and their ability to innovate successfully is determined by:  Their internal capabilities to identify opportunities and develop solutions and their capacity to ‘absorb’ knowledge from external sources  By their ‘embeddedness’ in a structure, or network, of relationships with other innovation actors that enable them to seek and access external inputs  By their location in a wider economic and social system conducive to innovation  Businesses are at the centre of an innovation process that involves continuous interaction and feedbacks between perceptions of market opportunities, technological capabilities, and learning processes  Businesses make use of a wide range of inputs to innovation; both from internal sources - that are much wider than just in-house R&D, and from external sources – most typically from their suppliers and also from customers. PROs are just one source of many external inputs to firms’ innovation processes and, in general, they are used to a much lesser extent than other sources.  Some sectors will be more predisposed to work with PROs than others. Science-based firms in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, electronics, chemicals and materials rely on developments in fundamental science and as a result have the closest ties with PROs.  Not all sectors make use of formal intellectual property as a method to appropriate innovations. Science- based sectors tend to use intellectual property in the form of patents to protect their innovations – to ensure a sufficient return on their R&D investments (e.g. pharmaceuticals) and/ to secure market leadership (e.g. electronics). While other sectors use a range of mechanisms for protection: the software sector tends to use copyright; while firms that rely on inputs from suppliers protect their innovations by design, trademarks, marketing and advertising; and secrecy, internal know-how and technological leadership also have a role to play.  Therefore the proportion of innovation active firms that are willing and able to engage with PROs via a technology transfer model focused on the exploitation of formal IP is somewhat limited and, moreover, different knowledge transfer mechanisms will be required for sectors that do not rely on IP.  Furthermore the pattern of historical industrial development and the resultant sectoral structure at the national and regional level, as well as national cultures and norms, will influence the extent of interaction between firms and PROs.16 Sergiu-Valentin Parvan, Community Innovation Statistics: Weak link between innovative enterprises and public research institutes/universities, Statistics in Focus, Science and Technology, 81/2007 19
  • 27. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________4. The Role of PROs in Innovation4.1 Knowledge transfer mechanismsThe early European public policies (in the late 1980s to mid 1990s) directed at the role of PROs in innovationconcentrated on the transfer of technology in the form of formal intellectual property. The focus was onprotecting research outputs with commercial potential through patenting (in particular) followed either by thelicensing of patents to businesses for commercialisation or establishing spin-outs to conduct thecommercialisation process. These policies were essentially based on the linear model of innovation andfocused largely on technology push from PROs to industry. However as a more systemic model of theinnovation process has emerged, along with increased practical experience of knowledge transfer from PROs,a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of the role of PROs has developed. The need for newknowledge versus problem-solving capabilities, the need for both codified and tacit knowledge, theabsorptive capacity of different sectors and individual businesses and differences in sectoral patterns ofinnovation all influence how businesses interact with PROs.The literature and the evidence from the case studies suggest that mechanisms for accessing and transferringknowledge can be grouped into seven categories with each mechanism transferring different types (orcombination of types) of knowledge. The figures below present the knowledge transfer mechanisms (Figure3), types of knowledge (Figure 4) and the types of knowledge transferred by the different KT mechanisms(Figure 5).As Figure 3 illustrates, access to codified research outputs is made available via the traditional publications ofthe academic profession – articles in journals, books, monographs, conference proceedings etc. Firms can alsoaccess and exploit codified knowledge embodied in formal intellectual property (IP), most commonly patentsvia purchase or licensing of IP. IP generated by PROs can also be made available to the market through theestablishment of new businesses (spin-outs) to develop and sell the technology. Where these businessescontinue to work with PRO researchers as employees or consultants, they also gain access to the tacitknowledge associated with the IP.Firms can procure research outputs specific to their needs via consultancy and contract R&D at PROs. Thismay be to solve specific existing problems or as part of the ‘search’ activity in their innovation process andmay involve the application of existing knowledge (consultancy) or the generation of new knowledge(contract R&D) to identify solutions. This mechanism tends to result in the transfer of codified knowledge inreports focused on the clients’ specific problems or interests or knowledge embodied in artefacts orinstrumentation. Some tacit knowledge may be transferred depending on the level of engagement betweenresearchers and clients. Firms can elect to work even more closely with researchers on research areas ofmutual interest through jointly funded and jointly conducted formal collaborative R&D projects. These mightbe one-to-one projects negotiated directly between a PRO and a firm or projects stimulated through publicresearch funding programmes involving a larger group of PRO and industry partners in so-called ‘pre-competitive’ research. While individual research projects may last anywhere between one to five years,collaborative R&D may also involve much longer term research relationships centred on ‘competence centres’(part funded by the public and private sectors) such as the Engineering Research Centres in the USA or theSwedish Competence Centres, that develop 5-10 year research strategies in, typically, basic research of mutualindustry and academic interest. This type of shared funding, design and implementation of research activitiesacross both the research base and industrial locations enables a two-way transfer of tacit as well as codifiedand embodied knowledge not only between PROs and industry and also between industry partners who maybe different actors in a value-chain or from different sectors that use similar technologies or encounter similarproblems.Firms and PROs may also engage in more informal collaboration to transfer (primarily) tacit knowledgethrough personal relationships and professional associations or through participation conferences and otherevents. These tend to be more ad-hoc interactions either sought out for specific reasons or through the generalparticipation in the activities of similar professional or disciplinary communities. In some cases, specificnetworks are created by professional associations or public policy to bring together those with commoninterests in order to facilitate knowledge sharing and problem solving. 20
  • 28. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Finally firms may access codified and tacit knowledge through proactively supporting the development ofresearch skills by recruiting post-graduates with Masters and PhD level research skills, funding Masters andPhD students, supporting joint PRO-industry positions or temporary staff exchanges.Figure 3 Knowledge transfer mechanisms 17 Mechanism Description 1 Publications  Publications in referred journals / books  Other reports /publications  Open source publication  Presentations at conferences  Patent texts 2 Exploiting intellectual Disclosure of PRO generated IP and its commercialisation through: property  Selling IP  Licensing IP (particularly patents) to companies for commercialisation  Creating spin-outs based on PRO IP (typically licensed to the spin-out) and involving PRO personnel/ faculty 3 Contract R&D and  Contract R&D: formal contract between a company and a PRO, for the PRO to conduct consultancy novel research to create new knowledge on behalf of a business  Consultancy: formal contract between a company and a PRO for PRO personnel to apply existing knowledge to company’s business (e.g. advice, written reports, technical adaptation)  Technical services: e.g. testing / characterisation services etc. using PRO facilities to provide data /information 4 Formal collaboration/  University-industry collaborative research partnerships typically encouraged and partnerships supported (in part) with public funds  Joint (research) ventures between PRO and a company)  Groups of companies and universities /PROs engaged in longer-term research partnerships of common interest such as competence centres 5 Informal interactions Informal /personal exchanges with links made through a variety of means:  Personal contacts  Alumni organisations  Professional organisations  Participation in conferences /seminars 6 Accessing research skills  Hiring higher-level graduates (Masters/ PhD)  Financing of PhD projects  Student internships in business  Temporary staff exchanges / visits  Staff holding joint positions in PRO and industry 7 Other mechanism(s) For example:  Training / continuing professional development  Sharing facilities  Exchange of research materials  Public events / open days17Based on: Wesley M. Cohen, Richard R. Nelson and John P. Walsh, Links and Impacts: The Influence of PublicResearch on Industrial R&D, Management Science, 48 (1), 2002, 1-23; Gillian McFadzean, A comparison of differentexploitation methods (e.g. licensing, selling, spin-outs) as means to extract value form research results: why do people ororganisations choose certain routes for the exploitation of research results?, European Commission 2009 ExpertGroup on Knowledge Transfer (2009); Arianna Martinelli, Martin Meyer, Nick von Tunzelmann, Becoming anentrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange mechanisms and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized,research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 33, pp 259-283, 2008; Ajay Agrawal, RebeccaHenderson, Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT, Management Science, Vol. 48 no. 1,pp 44-60, 2002 21
  • 29. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment ____________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 4 Types of knowledge 18Type of knowledge ExamplesCodified (explicit) Protectable/ formal Patents intellectual property Copyright Registered /unregistered designs Trademarks ‘Soft’ intellectual property Uncopyrighted software Databases Materials (not patented or trademarked) Research questionnaires Research methodologies Publications Referred journals and other academic publications such as books, monographs, conference proceedings (most of which are also covered by copyright) Open source publications Publications/ online sources not covered by copyrightTacit Know-how Skills Techniques Complex cumulative knowledge plus conceptual models and terminologyEmbedded Physical manifestations of Instrumentation knowledge (artefacts) Materials e.g. samples of new materials, cell lines Figure 5 Types of knowledge transferred by each KT mechanism 19Knowledge transfermechanism Sub-category Type of knowledge transferredPublications n/a (Existing) codified knowledgeExploiting intellectual Selling / licensing IP Codified knowledgeproperty Spin-outs Codified and tacit knowledgeContract R&D and Contract R&D (New) codified, embedded knowledge (tacit knowledge in some cases)consultancy Consultancy (Existing) codified knowledge (tacit knowledge in some cases) Technical services Codified and/or embedded knowledgeFormal collaboration/ n/a Tacit knowledge, codified knowledge (existing and new), embeddedpartnerships knowledge (if any created)Informal interactions n/a Tacit knowledgeAccessing research skills n/a Tacit knowledgeOther mechanisms e.g. training Tacit knowledge 18Constructed by Technopolis based on: Erik von Hippel, The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process, Research Policy 5 (3), 1976, 212-239 and Successful industrial products from customer ideas, Journal of Marketing, 42 (4), 1978, 39-49; Brigitte Anderson and Frederica Rossi , The flow of knowledge from the academic research base into the economy: the use and effectiveness of formals IPRs and ‘soft’ IP in UK universities, A report to the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy, Intellectual Property Office , Oct 2010 19 Constructed by Technopolis based on: Anderson, op.cit. (2010), Bekkers, op. cit. (2010) 22
  • 30. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________4.2 Relative importance of different knowledge transfer mechanismsA number of empirical studies have investigated the importance of different KT mechanisms fromthe perspective of both industry and PRO researchers. 20 Theses studies demonstrate that the mostimportant knowledge transfer mechanisms, for manufacturing firms and those with some level ofin-house R&D, are a combination of the traditional outputs of academic research, that ispublications such as journal articles and conference proceedings, plus informal interactions such aspersonal contacts, conferences and seminars. For both industry and PROs contract andcollaborative R&D and consultancy fall in the middle ground, while exploiting IP is of considerablyless importance – albeit ranked slightly more important by industry than PROs. This is not tosuggest that exploiting IP generated by PROs is not important, but that it needs to be understood aspart of a much wider knowledge transfer system. (Appendix C provides a more detailed analysisof the published empirical research.)The studies show that IP exploitation is of greater importance for a few science-based sectors, suchas pharmaceuticals, chemicals and parts of electronics, that is the sectors that are highly dependenton scientific advances and rely on patents as a source of competitive advantage. This finding isreinforced by studies of the patenting and licensing behaviour of PROs. In the late 1980s drugs andmedicine were the largest field in which universities in the USA patented, making up around 35%of all university patents, followed by chemicals (20-25%), electronics (20-25%) and mechanicaltechnologies (10-15%). 21 The importance of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and medicaltechnologies has remained a consistent pattern in both the USA and Europe. Three quarters ofBelgian university patents in the period 1985-99 were in biotechnology related fields. 22 In Denmarkbetween 1978 and 2003, 51% of university patents were taken out in pharmaceuticals andbiotechnology, followed by 17% in instruments and then 11% in electronics. 23 The more recent 2007AUTM survey in the USA reported that 25% of all university patents were in ‘therapeutic andmedical devices’. 24 The analysis of patenting behaviour of European PROs in the phase 1 of thestudy further reinforces this point, with the majority of patents being in fields related to themedicines and healthcare via developments in life sciences and chemistry (i.e. science-basedindustries), followed by new instrumentation and measurement techniques, developed in byspecialist-suppliers and deployed in a range of sectors (Appendix E).20 Cohen at al. op.cit. (2002); Bekkers et al, op. cit. (2008), Martinelli et al, op. cit. (2008); Ajay Agrawal et al, op. cit. (2002)21 R. Henderson, A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Review of Economics and Statistics 80:119-127. 199822 Eleftherios Sapsalis and Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Insight into the patenting performance of Belgian universities, Brussels Economic Review, 46 (3), 2003, 37-5823 Peter Lotz, Francesco Lissoni, Jens Schovsbo and Adele Treccani, Academic patenting and the professor’s privilege, DRUID Conference, 200924 AUTM US Licensing activity survey; survey summary FY 2007, AUTM, 2007 23
  • 31. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________The case studies report a similar pattern, with most patenting activity arising in disciplines mostaligned with patenting sectors, that is in the life and physical sciences. For example: 65% of patentactivity at the University Libre Bruxelles is in the life sciences; at the University of Milan themajority of its patent activities are in the life (21%) and physical sciences (40%) and just over half ofits spin-outs are in life sciences/pharmaceuticals. Similarly, the patenting activity of the KTO at theUniversity of Oxford is divided roughly equally between outputs from the life and physical sciencefaculties and a significant proportion of its spin-outs are in the life sciences. All of these universitieshave a relatively broad disciplinary base and so there is not an inherent bias towards specificdisciplines or sectors. However it is important to note that the science-based sectors make use of arange of KT mechanisms, not just IP exploitation, and view these other mechanisms as important.These findings align fairly closely with the taxonomy of sector-innovation models (Figure 2) in thatthe science-based sectors, i.e. the sectors that the taxonomy identified as having close-links to thescience-base and using patents to appropriate innovations, such as pharmaceuticals, electronics,chemicals, make the most use of IP from PROs. Other sectors engage with PROs in other waysmaking use of publications, consultancy, contract /collaborative R&D etc. but rarely make use ofPRO generated IP.In practice (as reported by KTO staff) individual companies with fairly intensive interactions withPROs make use of a range of KT mechanisms - using different mechanisms to initiate interactionswith PROs and then develop long-term relationships with relevant academics and research groupsto access both codified and tacit knowledge. Publications, for example, may help identify the keyplayers in a field and informal interactions at a conference or seminar might be the first step in aninteraction. A closer relationship might start with a consultancy or contract R&D project to solve aparticular relatively short-term problem. Opportunities for collaborative R&D may arise as agreater understanding is gained of each others’ skills, needs and motivations and a deeper level oftrust has been developed and later, such projects might result in IP that the industry partner canexploit.In fact, licensees of PRO-generated IP tend to be organisations already known to the PRO and are,therefore the culmination of longer-term relationships. MIT reports, for example, that the majorityof licences (of the order of 70%) are executed with commercial entities already known by theinventor. 25 Furthermore, the exploitation of PRO-generated IP, which is typically at a very earlystage of development, usually requires further input from academic researchers during thedevelopment and (if successful) eventual commercialisation phases. This can take the form ofcollaborative R&D, contract R&D or consultancy that facilitate the transfer of ‘softer’ forms ofknowledge such as tacit knowledge and know-how. It is relatively unusual for a licence agreementwith a PRO not to involve interactions and further knowledge transfer between the licensee andthe researcher whose work underpins the patent.Research suggests that IP licensing can also be the starting point for a relationship; here publishedpatents are used to identify who to work with (e.g. through patent scanning) and licensing is usedas a method to instigate and then develop relationships with academics. 2625 Inventor’s Guide to Tech Transfer outlines the essential elements of technology transfer at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Technology Licensing Office, MIT, 200526 Ahmad Rahal, University technology buyers, a glimpse into their thoughts, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, Vol. 3, Issues 1, pp 38-41, 208 24
  • 32. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Moreover the literature also shows that it is not simply the sector that defines how firms interactwith PROs but the disciplines with which they interact and the characteristics of the knowledgeand organisations involved. 27 Labour mobility, for example, is important when knowledgebreakthroughs are expected and when less knowledge is susceptible to being codified.Collaborative and contract research is important for transferring both codifiable knowledge as wellas systemic and interdependent knowledge; these routes also appear to be more important formedium and large firms (presumably as they have the internal R&D budgets to engage in this way)and less important for physics and chemistry but more important for medical science, chemicalengineering and computer sciences. The key point made by the researchers is that while certainpatterns of factors tend to align with certain sectors they may also be present in individual firmsand therefore a simplistic sector approach may not be appropriate for all firms in a sector. The casestudies confirm this, with the KTOs who have responsibility for a wide range of KT mechanisms,reporting that the most appropriate form of interaction with any individual company is selected ona case-by-case basis.While the empirical studies have concentrated on manufacturing firms and those with some levelof in-house R&D, the results are more generally important to a consideration of knowledgetransfer, because these are the very firms that might be expected to be most interested in accessingformal IP. And, if the non-IP mechanisms are important for these firms, they can only be expectedto be even more relevant and important for those firms and sectors with little interest in formal IP.Consequently, IP exploitation alone will only ever be a comparatively minor part of the knowledgethat flows between PROs and businesses.The range of different mechanisms used by firms demonstrates that once relationships have beendeveloped, PROs become part of a company’s innovation network – facilitating informalinteractions and building relationships and reputations that may lead, over time, to more formalinteractions and deeper trust-based relationships. Developing a strong position and a reputationfor effective interactions with industry within a network takes time and as an approach toknowledge transfer is in almost complete opposition to the concept of selling or licensing IP to thehighest bidder from an all-purpose technology transfer ‘shop window’.In summary, the KT mechanisms ranked in order of importance by both industry and academicsare as follows: The traditional published academic outputs such as journal articles, conference proceedings and books Informal interactions including interactions at conferences, seminars and via professional associations as well as personal contacts and relationships More in depth research relationships – including contract research, consultancy, collaborative R&D and accessing research skills (through funding PhDs etc.) Exploiting PRO IP through licensing patents, copyright etc.27 Bekkers et al, op. cit. (2008) 25
  • 33. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________4.3 Is there any conflict between KT mechanisms?There has been considerable concern that increased engagement with industry, and the protectionof PRO research outputs by patenting in particular, would undermine the traditional academicvalues, such as openness, and compromise the independence of academic research. 28 There is alsowidespread suspicion – notably among those who do not patent – that patenting distorts researchinto an applied direction. The empirical evidence is somewhat mixed and falls into two broadcategories.There is, in fact, no serious evidence that patenting impedes publication or the quality of researchconducted at PROs. Recent evidence reveals that there is considerable complementarity betweenpatenting and publishing as well as between the patenting and other KT mechanisms, notably,collaborative and contract R&D, consultancy, and joint PhD training. This is the case, for example,in technology areas related to chemistry, computer science and sub-fields of engineering andphysics. 29 A survey of Italian academics found that those who published most in the scientificliterature also patented the most. 30 A study of Norwegian faculty found that those in receipt ofindustrial funding publish more than other researchers. 31 Crespi et al 32 have shown thatpublication and patenting are complementary activities up to a maximum point, beyond whichpatents begin to substitute for publications. They also found that high levels of scientificproduction and contract research are both conducive to patenting. Broadly, therefore, theyconclude that “top researchers succeed to publish and patent a lot; a high patent output does notseem to affect negatively the publication output of the most prolific researchers.”The second issue relates specifically to the use of patents by PROs. The concern arises on theindustrial side of PRO-industry relations where some companies have found that the behaviour ofthe KTO towards patenting and licensing can sometimes impede commercialisation. Through acombination of over-valuing their IP, a desire (and targets) for PRO spin-outs and inexperience inIP management and commercialisation, KTOs can become a barrier to efficient and effectiveindustry engagement. This is a result, in part, of a view held by both policy-makers and PROsthemselves that IP commercialisation is a potential income stream for PROs rather than as part oftheir public good role to make their knowledge available for societal benefit. IP protection of PROgenerated knowledge was initially intended to act as an incentive to industry to invest in thecommercialisation of PRO knowledge, (something that, in most cases, PROs have neither the skillsnor experience to do well). However the evidence suggests that those experiencing difficultiestended to be small companies and short projects, suggesting that larger companies with moreexperience are more able to work with universities despite these IP issues. 3328 Richard R. Nelson, “The market economy and the scientific commons,” Research Policy, 33 (3), 2004, 455-47229 Gustavo Crespi, Pablo D’Este, Roberto Fontana and Aldo Geuna, The Impact of Academic Patenting on University Research and its Transfer, SPRU Electronic working Paper Series No. 178, Sussex University: SPRU, 2008.30 Valentina Tartari and Stefano Breschi, “Set them free: Scientists’ perceptions of benefits and cost of university-industry research collaboration” DRUD Conference, 200931 Magnus Gulbrandsen and Jens-Christian Smeby, “The external orientation of university researchers and implications for academic performance and management,” Science and Public Policy, 200332 Crespi et al, op. cit. (2009)33 Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: evidence from the Advanced Technology Program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 87-98. 26
  • 34. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Furthermore those PROs with more experienced KTOs tend to have fewer problems strikingsuitable IP deals, suggesting that many go through ‘teething problems’ as they learn to take on anew role. However it is important that KTOs do not become barriers to PRO-industry interactionsthrough taking inappropriately protective IP positions. The majority of knowledge transfer relieson interactions of individual researchers and industrialists, with the KTO acting as a bridge orfacilitator. The individual interactions form parts of networks that constantly configure andreconfigure into a succession of functioning ‘innovation systems’ or cooperative networks. 34 IfKTOs become barriers this will not only limit the potential for new interactions but may alsodamage the networks.There is no evidence as yet to suggest that proactive knowledge transfer activity, through patentingor other mechanisms, is pushing research in a more applied direction. The fact that industry seeksto work with high quality academic institutions across a wide range of disciplines would suggestotherwise.It is also important to note that, in many if not most fields, university-industry links improveresearch performance. A UK study indicates that – except in the specific case of IP exploitation – most academics engage with industry to further their research rather than to commercialise theirknowledge. 35 Industrial interaction provides important signals about what problems are ofpractical and industrial interest in research terms, as well as often leading to the provision ofresources. 36 Therefore knowledge transfer is not simply a one-way exchange as there are benefits tobe gained from the flow of knowledge in both directions. Several of the PROs in our sample nowrefer to engagement with industry as ‘knowledge exchange’ rather than knowledge transfer torecognise this two-way flow. Furthermore, the term ‘knowledge exchange’ is starting to replace‘knowledge transfer’ among policy-makers indicating a wider recognition of the interactivity andexchange in PRO-business engagements.Therefore the empirical literature suggests that there are strong linkages between researchproductivity and patenting activity. In our sample, the most successful PROs in terms of IPexploitation tend to be the large research-intensive institutions who have been active in IPexploitation for 20-25 years. These are also the institutions with significant industrial researchincome, again reinforcing that patenting activity does not substitute for other forms of industrialengagement. These PROs have significant experience in IP exploitation and other forms ofindustrial engagement and have developed a knowledge transfer system that does not appear toimpede interactions.More generally, the empirical literature and our case studies, demonstrate that businesses makeuse of a range of KT mechanisms simultaneously and at different times reinforcing the conclusionthat KT mechanisms are complementary rather than substitutes.34 Paul David and J Sanley Metcalfe, “Only Connect: Academic-Business Research Collaborations and the Formation of Ecologies of Innovation, SIEPR Discussion Paper 07-33, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, January 200835 Pablo D’Este and Markus Perkman, “Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations,” Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming)36 Edwin Mansfield, “Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics and financing,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 77 (1), 1995, 55-65; Siegel et al., op. cit., 2003 27
  • 35. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________4.4 The effects of knowledge transferThe link between publicly funded research and economic and social impact is notoriously difficultto demonstrate due to the timescales involved, the multifarious inputs required (skills, actors,financial inputs and types of knowledge) to undertake innovation based on PRO outputs, and therisks involved. It is therefore not a simple task to identify the societal effects of different KTmechanisms – not least, as described above, as businesses that interact with PROs tend to make useof more than one mechanism, making distinctions between mechanisms difficult. We foundnothing in the literature that assessed the relative impacts of the different mechanisms.Instead we have developed a relatively simple model to describe qualitatively the effects of thedifferent KT mechanisms on the different actors involved: PROs themselves, industry (in both thenear and long term), and on society as a whole. The model is presented in Figure 6. 37 It providesestimates of the volume and the depth of the activity for each type of mechanism. The volume isestimated for Europe and the depth (i.e. the intensity of the interaction) is estimated for eachindividual interaction.The KT mechanisms are ordered in terms of the number of unique interactions from highest tolowest. It is assumed that informal interactions are the most numerous although the actual numberis unknown and is, in fact, probably unknowable. Around 500,000 research papers were publishedin 2011 38 with further conference proceedings, monographs, books etc. published. The number ofarticles read by industry will be a sub-set of the total (as they conduct their search for innovationopportunities) but it can be presumed that publications of interest may lead to further engagementwith PROs from informal interactions to perhaps deeper forms of interaction – leading to newideas and opportunities for innovation, with some innovation activities resulting in businessgrowth. From the PRO perspective publications are their key research output, disseminating newknowledge and enhancing their reputation. For society as a whole they represent an increase in thestock of knowledge and make it publicly available and so making research spillovers possible.Informal interactions increase the opportunities for spillovers to occur.Consultancy and contract R&D occur at a reasonable volume (the volume has been estimated fromtwo sources yielding similar results) but each individual interaction is relatively small.Consultancy is most frequent but very short-term and very small-scale (for example, the annual UKsurvey of knowledge transfer activity reports the average consultancy and contract R&D activity tobe €4,500 and €32,000 respectively). 39 These activities tend to solve current problems using existingknowledge – where that knowledge is packaged to answer specific questions. For the business itcan contribute to innovation and, if the innovation is successful, it may contribute to businessgrowth. It also helps maintain or develop relationships with PROs which enhance the innovationnetworks within which it operates.37 Estimates are based on a number of sources including: PACEC, Evaluation of the effectiveness and role of HEFCE/OSI third stream funding, Report to HEFCE by PACEC and the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, 2009; Anthony Arundel and Catalina Bordoy, Summary respondent report: ASTP survey for fiscal year 2008, UNU-MERIT report for the Association of European Science and Technology Transfer Professionals, January 2010; Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/365-days-2011-in-review- 1.9684; the number of FP7 projects started annually38 Nature, op. cit. (2011)39 PACEC and the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Evaluation of the effectiveness and role of HEFCE/OSI third stream funding, HEFCE, April 2009 28
  • 36. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Contract R&D has similar effects, but with a deeper interaction and the prospect of creating newknowledge. If there is a level of direct engagement during the project then tacit knowledge andskills may also be transferred. From a societal perspective both mechanisms increase the potentialfor innovation and business growth. It should be noted that innovation may also be necessary toprotect existing revenue, jobs and profits within a competitive market.Collaborative R&D involves a much longer and deeper interaction – either as a one-to-onepartnership between a PRO and company or a multi-party collaboration conducting pre-competitive and/or cross-sector research, and therefore these happen at lower volumes but at amore significant scale. Projects are usually co-funded from public and private sources and may lastanywhere between 3 and 5 years, for R&D projects, or 5-10 years for multi-party ‘competencecentres’. From a business perspective, it not only enables access to new knowledge and innovationopportunities in an area considered important, it also provides access to skills (and potential futureresearch staff), new technological capabilities and new business relationships with other partners.For PROs, collaborative R&D provides the opportunity to conduct basic or applied research,gaining insight into industrial needs and interesting research problems. Collaborative R&D offerssociety the potential to gain the widest set of benefits – new knowledge and the potential forspillovers, more embedded innovation networks and ultimately more innovative businesses.Patenting and licensing if conducted in isolation from other KT mechanisms offer businesses thepotential for innovation and growth benefits and provide a potential for income for the PRO. But ingeneral most benefit occurs when licensing is combined with other mechanisms to ensure that tacitknowledge and skills are also transferred giving the business an enhanced ability to commercialiseand enhanced skills for the future. This means that most licensing takes place in the context oflonger and deeper relationships between PROs and industry. Furthermore, as the analysis of PROpatents in Phase 1 of this study demonstrated (Appendix E) this KT mechanism is only suitable forcertain science-based sectors, whereas other mechanisms have wider applicability.The model demonstrates that all KT mechanisms provide value to PROs, industry and society and,taking volume and scale into account, it cannot be easily claimed that one mechanism results inmore impact than any other. Therefore knowledge transfer policy needs to ensure that allmechanisms are facilitated and that no one mechanism is supported at the expense of another.Different types of PROs will make use of the mechanisms best suited to their institutional contextand business environment. 29
  • 37. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________4.5 Summary The role of PROs in innovation  PROs are not simply ‘suppliers’ of technology or IP to industrial innovation processes. They provide problem-solving capabilities, skilled staff, access to specialist equipment, as well providing access to large pool of cumulative knowledge and technical know-how in a wide numbers of scientific and technical domains – any of which may stimulate new ideas for innovation or help support the development of pre-existing ideas.  To access this wide range of innovation inputs a number of different knowledge transfer mechanisms are used and valued by both industry and PROs. Individual companies often make use of several mechanisms, depending on the type of knowledge they wish to access and focus of their innovation activities.  The traditional channels of knowledge flow from (and across) the academic community remain key knowledge transfer mechanisms between academia and industry  Both PROs and industry view academic publications as the most important mechanism for transferring knowledge from PROs to industry  Both industry and PROs value informal interactions, with a slightly higher importance placed on them by industry than by PROs  These traditional mechanisms are not generally managed via any formal processes at the organisational level nor are they mediated though any sort of market transaction  A number of other knowledge transfer mechanisms are used, and viewed as relatively important, by many industry sectors – including consultancy, contract and collaborative R&D and accessing research skills via hiring and funding graduates and staff exchanges. They may be one-off interactions or form part of longer-term relationships.  Exploiting IP through formal transactions is generally considered to be of lesser importance to both industry and PROs. It is relatively more important to those sectors based on the life and physical sciences and engineering disciplines that underpin the science-based industries such as pharmaceuticals, electrical/electronics, chemical engineering and advanced materials than to other sectors. Nevertheless these sectors also make wide use of other knowledge transfer mechanisms to improve their knowledge base and develop long-term relationships with relevant academics and departments.  Different mechanisms transfer different types of knowledge – with publications and patents transferring codified knowledge and more interactive mechanisms, such as contract and collaborative R&D, transferring both codified and tacit knowledge.  Codified knowledge is often not sufficient for industry to make use of the outputs of PRO research and therefore businesses tend to make use of more than one KT mechanism. This is particularly the case when commercialising IP from PROs. The patented technology is usually at a very early stage and further input from researchers is required. Licensees often use other KT mechanisms – consultancy, contract and collaborative R&D or accessing skills (e.g. hiring PhDs) - to develop the technology further.  Therefore the different KT mechanisms are complementary rather than substitutes.  PRO patenting does not appear to compromise traditional academic activities and values, however KTOs can become a barrier to, rather than a facilitator of, knowledge transfer if they take an overly protective position on IP.  The different KT mechanisms are used by businesses to different extents to suit their particular needs and for particular purposes within their innovation activities, and therefore all the mechanisms can provide value to businesses, PROs and society. Each has its role in knowledge transfer. 30
  • 38. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations ____________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 6 Effects of KT mechanisms Estimate of volume of new activity (per Estimate of scale of the Benefit to industry Benefit to industry Benefit to societyKT Mechanism year) activity What is transferred Benefit to PRO (near-term) (long-term) (long-term)  New research ideas /  Access to existing/ new  Enhanced innovation  Spillovers opportunities knowledge networksInformal Unknown Short interactions Tacit knowledge  Extended innovation  New ideas / opportunitiesinteractions networks  Enhanced innovation networks Relatively short  New knowledge  New knowledge  Potential for business  Increased stock of interaction with research  Enhanced reputation  New ideas / opportunities growth knowledgePublications 500,000 Codified knowledge outputs & with no direct  Spillovers interaction with PRO  Future funding  Research income  Access to existing knowledge  Enhanced innovation  Increased potential  New knowledge  Problem solving networks for innovation Relatively short (fewConsultancy 150,000 weeks) & low cost activity Codified knowledge (contract R&D)  Enhanced innovation networks  Potential for business ~€5- 10k  New research ideas growth  Reputation  Income  New knowledge  Enhanced innovation  Increased stock of Medium-term interactions  New knowledge  New ideas / opportunities networks knowledge Codified and (some)Contract R&D 50,000 (several months) tacit knowledge  New research ideas  Enhanced innovation networks  Potential for business  Increased potential Costing <€50k growth for innovation  Reputation  Skilled employees  Research income  New knowledge  Enhanced capabilities  Increased stock of  New knowledge  New know-how  Enhanced innovation knowledge 20,000 Longer-term activity (3-5  New research ideas  New ideas / opportunities networks  SpilloversCollaborative (but around years or longer) on a Codified and tacitR&D 75,000 in place at greater financial scale knowledge  Reputation  Enhanced innovation networks  Potential for business  Increased potential any one time) ~€100k-€2M growth for innovation  PhDs & employment  Skilled employees opportunities for PhDs Limited interaction with  Income  Access to new technology  Potential for business  Increased potentialExploiting IP Patents: 10,000 Codified knowledge academics (if no other  Enhanced reputation (providing new market growth for innovation(patents / Licences 15,000 mechanisms used in opportunities)licences) parallel) Variable financial scale 31
  • 39. 32
  • 40. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________5. The Role of Knowledge Transfer OfficesThe first action of many European countries to develop the role of PROs in innovation was toenact laws or regulation, along the lines of the USA Bayh-Dole Act, to allocate ownership ofintellectual property (IP) developed under public research funding to PROs and require PROsto be proactive in exploiting the knowledge they create. In some countries this also requiredthe removal of legal restrictions that barred academics from engaging with industry or settingup companies.Across Europe this process has taken place over a long period of time with, for example, theUK and Spain doing so in the early 1980s, Switzerland, France, and Belgium in the 1990s andDenmark, Germany, Norway, Slovenia, Hungary and Ireland in the 2000s. In some countriesthe law included a requirement for PROs to implement structures, processes and policies pro-actively to commercialise PRO-generated IP. In others the incentive to do so came later viaadditional laws or policies and, in some cases, public funding. As a result, across Europe,incorporating a ‘third mission’ for universities (and a second mission for research institutes)became standard for PROs.In implementing the change in IP ownership, the early policies were heavily focused on‘technology transfer’ from PROs in the form of the commercialisation of IP. In part this was aresult of the dominance of the linear model of innovation but it was also due to the perceivedsuccess of the Bayh-Dole Act in the USA. These IP-focused policies led to the development ofdedicated and centralised support within PROs for technology transfer in the form ofTechnology Transfer Offices (TTOs). However the evidence was mounting in the USA andEurope that, as only a few science-based sectors rely on patents to protect innovations (andcompanies in those sectors tend to be relatively well-connected to the top-performing PROs),only a small number of large research-intensive PROs with international reputations were ablesuccessfully to transfer their IP to industry and, furthermore, due to the early stage of thetechnologies, even fewer were able to achieve significant financial returns from their IP. Theappearance of this evidence coincided with the development of a more complex and systemicpicture of innovation. As a result, the emphasis of innovation policy relating to PROs started tochange.In many of the ‘early adopter’ countries, such as the UK and France, technology transferpolicies have shifted towards ‘knowledge transfer’ policies with a broader definition of thepurpose of knowledge transfer and the type of activities it entails. In these cases thecommercialisation of IP has been recognised as just one tool in the knowledge transfer ‘toolkit’.As already shown in Figure 4 the spectrum of knowledge transfer mechanisms is broad andthis enables PROs, at least in theory, not only to interact with a wide range of industrial sectorsand pubic bodies but also to involve a wide range of academic disciplines. Of course many ofthe knowledge transfer mechanisms have been in use for many years –the EC FrameworkProgramme for example has been supporting collaborative R&D since 1984 and the UK LINKprogramme supporting collaborative R&D projects also started in the (late) 1980s – but theimportant point is that a wider range of knowledge transfer mechanisms are being recognisedin innovation policy as key features of PRO-industry interactions. 33
  • 41. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Individual PROs in ‘early adopter’ countries have tended to follow this path of development,not only due to the shift in policy emphasis from technology transfer to knowledge transferbut also as a result of their own learning processes; a large number of the PROs case studiedrefer to their Technology Transfer Office (TTOs) as Knowledge Transfer Offices (KTOs), forexample, as their role and remit has developed. Some KTO staff now refer to their role asknowledge exchange reflecting a greater acknowledgement of the two-way flow of knowledgebetween PROs and wider society. However it is important to note that while the policylanguage may have changed, the assessment of the success of knowledge transfer policies, aswe will see later (section 5.8), is still heavily biased towards technology transfer – usingmetrics such as numbers of invention disclosures, patents, licences and licence income.European KTOs are relatively young, and were created in response to law changes and policyrequirements. Three-quarters of the European KTOs included in this study have beenestablished since 2000 but some were established as far back as 1983. KTOs in New MemberStates have been created more recently, typically in 2004/05, but KTOs in Norway and Italyhave also been established as recently as 2004/05. A 2007 study put the average age ofEuropean TTOs as just under 11 years, which suggests that our sample is fairly typical. Anumber of KTOs started life as industrial liaison offices and have taken on the widertechnology transfer and then knowledge transfer role in response to policy changes.5.1 Economic theory underpinning the KTO functionThe IP exploitation role of TTOs and KTOs places them in a paradoxical position in relation toscience, and research more generally, because the economic rationales for basic research andfor patenting are opposite to each other.The idea of ‘market failure’ leading to under-investment in research has been the principalrationale for state funding of R&D in the post-War period. 40 Of course, governments had beenfunding research long before the economics profession produced a reason. Arrow is generallycredited with describing the three major sources of market failure, which – from a neo-classicalperspective – make it useful for government to fund research  Indivisibility, because of the existence of minimum efficient scale  Inappropriability of the profit stream from research, leading to a divergence between public and private returns on investment. This results from two essential (and economically efficient) freedoms that scientific researchers have: namely to publish and to change jobs  Uncertainty, namely divergences in the riskiness of research respectively for private and public actors40 Ken Arrow , ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention,’ in Richard Nelson (Ed.) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, 1962; see also Richard Nelson, ‘The simple economics of basic scientific research,’ Journal of Political Economy, 67, 1959, 297-306 34
  • 42. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Arrow’s argument was particularly relevant to more ‘basic’ (and, by implication, generallyapplicable) forms of knowledge because firms’ inability to monopolise the results of suchresearch meant they would be unlikely to invest in it. Instead the state invests on behalf ofsociety. The spillovers that impede company investment in research provide the returns tosociety’s investment. Hence the corollary of market failure is the need for science to be open.This openness enables both other scientists and ‘users’ of knowledge, such as businesses whowish to apply it to their innovation activities, to access it – something that is generallyachieved through publication in the academic literature. Unlike many other goods, knowledgeis not consumed in the process of being used, so society can get many spillovers from the useand re-use of a particular piece of knowledge.In contrast the essential economic principle of the patenting system is that it offers theinventor, traditionally in industry, a bargain: temporary monopoly rights over an invention, inexchange for publishing details of that invention. The alternative would be a system of secrecywhere knowledge that gives competitive advantage is kept out of the public domain entirely.The point of publishing patents is to allow others to use the information they contain, once theperiod of monopoly has finished (or during the protection period but at a price negotiatedwith the owner). The period of monopoly granted to the inventor represents a judgementabout the balance between monopoly and subsequent spillovers that will be attractive toinventors while at the same time producing high social returns. Thus, while the purpose ofscientific publication is to enable the use of new knowledge, patents are published in order(temporarily) to prevent its use.Both the market failure rationale for publicly funding (at least basic) research and the systemof patents assumes that once knowledge is openly available through publication (in journals orpatents) limited effort is required for its transfer to other potential users.The effects of university ownership on the rate of commercial application and the value ofpatents has been analysed based on European academic inventions patented at the EPO. 41 Itfound no statistically significant effects of university ownership of patents – when universitiesowned the patents, they were more likely to be licensed but this did not lead to greatercommercial use. The implication is that legislation or policies intended to ensure PROs protecttheir invention may affect income distribution between companies and industry but haslimited wider economic effects - that is it redistributes wealth between PROs and the privatesector but does not necessarily create wealth. From the economic perspective, therefore, it doesnot matter overall whether universities or companies hold the IP rights to universityinventions. The usefulness of KTOs, as far as IP is concerned, becomes a practical rather than atheoretical matter. If, in practice, they overcome systems failures, then they add value.41 GA Crespi, A Geuna and B Verspagen, University IPRs and knowledge transfer. Is the IPR ownership model more efficient?, SPRU Eectronic Working Papers Series No 154, Brighton: SPRU: 2006 35
  • 43. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________However there are other important failures affecting economic performance. Relying on theneo-classical model of the firm, the market failure approach assumes away key deficiencies ofreal organisations, not least ‘capability failures’ such a lack of absorptive capacity for newknowledge. 42 Failures also exist at a higher level – such as failures in infrastructural provisionand investment; ‘transition failures’; lock-in failures; and institutional failures. 43 Furthermore,economists no longer simply view knowledge as readily codifiable and easily transferableinformation. Knowledge is a combination of codified, tacit, cumulative, and embodied inknow-how and skills and therefore it is less easily transferred meaning that its transmission isnot costless and requires ‘purposeful interactions between economic agents’. This, therefore,aligns with the concept of knowledge, rather than simply technology, transfer and the use of awider range of transfer mechanisms by PROs and industry.The market and systemic failures justify state intervention not only through the funding ofbasic science, but more widely in ensuring that the Innovation System performs as a whole.The economic argument for Knowledge Transfer Offices then, is actually a systemic one:namely, that without them less PRO-generated knowledge would be exploited elsewhere insociety, reducing overall welfare.More specifically this argument for state intervention requires that KTOs serve to reduce thetransaction costs of transferring uncertain and often un-codifiable knowledge from PROs toindustry by: helping to bridge the cultural barriers between PRO researchers and industry;professionalising the interactions and relationships; and in the longer term, developing deepand sustainable innovation networks, encompassing PROs and businesses, as part of an inter-connected Innovation System.42 Erik Arnold and Ken Guy, ‘Diffusion policies for IT: the way forward,’ OECD/ICCP Expert group on the economic implications of Information Technologies, Paris: OECD, 199143 See Keith Smith, Systems Approaches to Innovation: Some Policy Issues, TSER 3.1.1, Oslo: STEP Group 1996 36
  • 44. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________5.2 The emergence and expansion of academic KTOsContemporary TTOs first emerged in the late-1970s in leading USA universities and affiliatedmedical schools, as departments within the university administration (e.g. at HarvardUniversity, MIT and the UC system) or as independent licensing offices (e.g., at StanfordUniversity). These offices took over technology transfer (i.e. IP exploitation) activitiespreviously carried out by small administrative units, in some universities since the 1930s, or byindependent intermediary organisations, most notably the New York based ResearchCorporation a leading broker that facilitated many licensing activities for USA universitiessince its establishment in 1912 44 . Following the introduction of the Bayh-Dole Act (in 1980), theuniversities’ licensing increased sharply and the number of TTOs climbed from 25 in 1980, 200in 1990 and to around 400-500 in 2009. 45,46 Similarly, the licensing income of universities rosefrom $183 million in 1991 to $2.4 billion in 2010. 47 In Europe the development of KTOsoccurred somewhat later – the majority (59%) were established after 2000, 23% between 1990and 1999 and 18% prior to 1990. 48One strand of the literature questions whether the Bayh-Dole Act was the root cause of thesurge in university patenting in the USA through the 1980s and 1990s. Mowery and Sampat 49argue rather that Bayh-Dole resulted from the desire of USA universities to patent theirinventions – and they were already doing so (especially in molecular biology) before the Actwas passed. It seems likely, that case law changes – especially the decision that “engineeredmolecules” were patentable, combined with measures by the USA government to strengtheninternational protection of intellectual property – were already responsible for a surge inpatenting by USA universities. 50 This occurred primarily in biotechnology, where the bulk ofthe patents taken out are effectively for research tools.44 David C. Mowery, Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat and Arvids A. Ziedonis, “The Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. University Research and Technology Transfer,” in: Lewis M. Branscomb, Fumio Kodama and Richard Florida, eds., Industrializing Knowledge – University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999, 269-306; and Richard G. Hamermersh, Josh Lerner and David Kiron, “Technology Transfer at U.S. Universities,” Harvard Business School, Note 807-124, 2007 (January).45 Mowery, et al., op. cit., 199946This figure is a lower bound estimate based on the number of US institutions that are members of AUTM the actual figure will be somewhat higher. Irene Abrams, Grace Leung, Ashley J. Stevens, “How are U.S. Technology Transfer Offices tasked and motivated—is it all about the money? “ Research Management Review, Volume 17, Issue 1 Fall/Winter 2009),47 Mowery, et al., op. cit., 1999 and AUTM US Licensing Survey: FY 2010 – Survey Summary48Anthony Arundel, Franz Barjak, Nordine Es-Sadki, Tobias Heusing, Stefan Lilischkis, Pieter Perrett and Olga SamuelRespondent Report of the Knowledge Transfer Study (data for 2010). European Knowledge Transfer Indicators Survey: Code of Practice Implementation Survey: Interviews with Firms Active in Four R&D Intensive Sectors. Report produced by empirica GmbH, Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz and UNU- MERIT for the European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. February 201249 David C. Mowery and Bhaven N, Sampat, “University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925-1980’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (30), 2001, 99-11950 David C. Mowery, Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat and Arvids A. Ziedonis, “The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980,” Research Policy, 30 (1), 2001, 99-120 37
  • 45. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Some argue that this – together with the resulting encroachment of the private sector on the‘scientific commons’ is impeding rather than improving the rate and extent of scientificdevelopment and commercial application of the results of PRO research. 51The rise in university patenting in the USA appears to have tailed off from about the turn ofthe Millennium. Leydesdorff and Meyer argue that this has been driven by changes inuniversity incentive systems, which have tended to refocus on research excellence (oftenexpressed via ranking systems) and away from the previous push towards commercialisation(Figure 7).Figure 7 University patenting 1978-2008 as a percentage of patenting at theUSPO 52The organisation of knowledge transfer within European PROs is more recent than that of theUSA and also followed a different path. Although the first European KTO was, reportedly, setup in 1973 at the KU Leuven, 53 the emergence of these offices set off in some Europeancountries, including Spain and the UK, in the mid-late 1980s, intensified in the 1990s andcontinued through to the 2000s. A large number of KTOs were set up in the period 2000-2007in several EU countries, including Germany, Italy and Poland. 54 European level associations,the ProTon Europe network and ASTP, have also been established to bring together andsupport KTOs and national professional associations via, for instance, exchange ofexperiences, development of skills and promotion of good practices. (N.B. the offices still tendto be referred to as TTOs in the USA.)51 Richard R. Nelson, “The market economy and the scientific commons,” Research Policy, 33 (3), 2004, 455-47252Loet Leydesdorff and Martin Meyer, The decline of university patenting and the Bayh-Dole effect, Scientometrics 83 (2), 2010, 355-36253 Aldo Geuna and Alessandro Muscio, The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer, SPRU, Electronic Working Paper Series, No. 173, Sussex University: SPRU, 200854 ProTon Europe, The ProTon Europe Fourth Annual Survey Report (fiscal year 2006), ProTon Europe, 2008. Arundel and Catalina Bordoy, Summary Report for Respondents: The ASTP Survey for Fiscal Year 2007. Report produced for the Association of European Science and Technology Professionals, Maastricht: MERIT, 2008 38
  • 46. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________The different patterns of TTO/KTO development, and the pace of development, in Europe arelargely due to differences in national policies on PRO-industry relations as well as tovariations in the fundamental characteristics of the research system and difference in theregulatory system for patents in individual countries. The emergence of TTOs/KTOs inFrance, for instance, was facilitated by the introduction of regulatory measures to accelerateinnovation and to foster PRO-industry interactions between 1999 and 2006. 55 At the currenttime most European countries have Bayh-Dole style legislation and/or legislation establishingand in many cases, mandating, a third mission at PROs (examples are provided in Figure 8).Furthermore, in most European countries the legislation assigns the IP generated to the PRO.So-called ‘professors’ privilege’ has largely been removed, although it remains in variousforms in Sweden, Italy and Iceland (Figure 9).55 Laurent Bach and Patrick Llerena, “Indicators of higher-education institutes and public-research organizations technology transfer activities: insights from France,” Science and Public Policy, 34(10), 2007, 709–721 39
  • 47. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 8 Examples of law/regulatory changes enabling knowledge transfer atPROsCountry Date of change DescriptionUK 1983 1983 - IPR ownership passed to PROs 1993 - White Paper that started an era of policy focused on knowledge transfer role of PROsSpain 1983 / 1986 1983 University Law and 1986 Spanish General Law on Patents, Inventions and Utility Models  Technology transfer recognised as a role of PROs  IPR ownership passed to PROs  2008 Spanish Strategy fully recognises third mission for PROsSwitzerland 1992 1992 - IPR ownership passed to PROsWallonia (BE) 1997 The 1997 Decree of the Walloon Region:  IPR ownership passed to PROsFrance 1999 Innovation law 1999:  Recognised knowledge transfer as a key mission of PROs and created strong incentives for engaging with industry and business creationNetherlands 2000 2000 - national policy changes decentralised role of universities regarding knowledge transfer. 2004 - a Higher Education and Research Plan and a revised Science Budget – both documents introduced a number a policy measures for commercialising academic knowledgeDenmark 2000 Act on Inventions at Public Research Institutions – a law to regulate the ownership of inventions of university employees in Denmark and seeks to ensure that research results produced by means of public funds are utilised for the Danish society through commercial exploitationGermany 2002 Changes to the Law on Employees’ Inventions:  Abolished the system of ‘Professors Privilege’Norway 2003 Granted universities rights to commercially exploit IP developed by their faculties, while also mandating that the universities facilitate research-based innovation through the licensing of technology and the formation of new enterprises. It required universities to more actively facilitate research-based innovationIreland 2004 A number of Codes of Practice that established guidelines for IPR  The first, in 2004, addressed the management of IP from publicly funded research  The second, published in 2005, addressed the management and commercialisation of researcher from public private collaborative research.Hungary 2004 The Act CXXXIV of 2004 on Research, development and technological innovation:  PROs required to establish IPR management systemsSlovenia 2006 Research and Development Act No 22/2006:  IPR ownership passed to PROsTechnopolis: KTO case studies 40
  • 48. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 9 Ownership of IPR in European Universities and other PROs Universities Non-University PROsCountry Institution Inventor Government Institution Inventor GovernmentAustria X XBelgium X XDenmark X XFinland X XFrance X XGermany X XIceland X XIreland X XItaly x X x XNetherlands X XNorway X XPoland X XSpain X XSweden X XSwitzerland X x XUnited XKingdomX = Legal basis or most common practice, x = allowed by law/rule, but less common. Source 56 (updatedby Technopolis)5.3 PRO knowledge transfer strategies5.3.1 National legislation / regulation to support knowledge transferThe 19 European PROs studied are located in countries that have amended their national lawsor regulations to enable knowledge transfer between PROs and industry. In most cases thelaws and regulations relate specifically to IP ownership while some also state that there is arequirement for PROs to undertake activities to commercialise the IP and/or engage inknowledge transfer. In many cases the laws are supplemented by policies that provide moredetail of the expected mission or PROs and any relevant funding programmes. These legal andregulatory changes have led directly to the establishment of TTOs and development ofinstitutional policies for IP ownership and management. In most cases the initial policy focuswas on IP exploitation or ‘technology transfer’ was expanded over time into new laws,regulations or national policies that defined a wider third mission i.e. that of knowledgetransfer to industry and society rather than just IP exploitation and the subsequentdevelopment, in many but not all cases, of TTOs into KTOs.However other studies show that a number of European Member States are lagging and haveyet to implement national laws, regulations and/or policies for knowledge transfer (Figure10). While the majority of these are New Member States the list also includes the older MemberStates of Greece and Portugal.56 Turning Science into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations, Paris: OECD, 2003 (modified to account for the subsequent abolition of professor’s privilege in Finland) 41
  • 49. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 10 European countries with legal/ regulatory /policies in place to promote KT Countries WITH legal/regulatory/polices to Countries WITHOUT legal/regulatory/polices to promote KT as a strategic mission of a PRO promote KT as a strategic mission of a PRO (n=19 : 70%) (n=8 : 30%)Austria Ireland BulgariaBelgium Italy GreeceCyprus Luxembourg LatviaCzech Republic Netherlands LithuaniaDenmark Romania MaltaEstonia Slovenia PolandFinland Spain PortugalFrance Sweden SlovakiaGermany United KingdomHungarySource: ERAC 57 (orange denotes countries in the study sample)5.3.2 Institutional strategies for knowledge transferThe PROs studied include a third mission in their institutional strategies and address it in abroad sense as knowledge transfer rather than technology transfer. The third mission goesunder several names including: knowledge transfer; knowledge valorisation; business and enterprise;and ‘wider engagement with society. While the strategies refer to the role of IP management andcommercialisation in the third mission they also include other aspects of knowledge transfersuch as consultancy, collaborative and contract research, the development of incubators andscience parks as well as building an entrepreneurial culture among staff and students through,for example, education (students), training and awareness raising (staff) and specific activitiessuch as business plan competitions etc. This tells us that PROs do not regard their knowledgetransfer role as being solely about IP commercialisation and is, therefore, much more in linewith the innovation systems model, with PROs taking a multifaceted approach to industrialengagement to facilitate knowledge flows.Over and above the need to develop a dedicated KTO resource to professionalise theknowledge transfer interface and manage and commercialise IP, PRO strategies do not makestatements about the use of particular KT mechanisms, that is they do not specify the use ofparticular mechanisms over and above other mechanisms nor do they detail specificmechanisms for particular sectors. However PROs recognise that different sectors work indifferent ways and often employ sector specialists who understand sectoral needs, businessmodels and working methods. The KTOs studied recognise that certain sectors are more likelyto engage in IP licensing and employ specialists accordingly (e.g. IP specialists with aknowledge of the pharmaceutical, electronics or telecommunications sectors for example). Thegeneral view from KTO staff is that interactions are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and aslong as the under-pinning policies (such as for IP ownership) are in place, the KTO staff willaim to find the most appropriate mechanisms for each academic-industry interaction.57 ERAC, op. cit (2011) 42
  • 50. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Therefore, there does not appear to be any significant trading off amongst KT mechanisms atan institutional level, leaving KTOs and academic staff to make decisions about mechanisms.However where targets are in place for specific KTO /PRO outputs such as revenuegeneration or, for example, incubator/science park tenancies, these can be expected toinfluence individual decisions.The PROs studied have institutional policies in place with regard to IP ownership and theallocation of IP income between the individual inventor (the researcher), his/her researchgroup or department and the central university/PRO and the KTO. (Other surveys show thatmost European PROs have such IP ownership policies). 58 While the actual allocations vary it isquite typical to find a model such that the KTO costs are reimbursed, followed by a roughlythree-way split between the inventors, research group/department and the university. Insome countries the proportion allocated to the individual inventor is defined in the relevant IPlegislation but in others it is defined at the institutional level. Only two countries in Europeformally retain ‘professor privilege’ (that is professor ownership of IP) - Sweden and Italy.However this does not mean that the KTOs do not exist nor that the PROs do not providesupport to IP commercialisation. It is recognised that most academics do not have time,resources, skills or, in some cases the inclination, to commercialise their research outputs, andtherefore professional support and encouragement to commercialise is still required. In Italythe pendulum seems to be swinging back towards institutional ownership of IP; professorprivilege was brought in to incentivise commercialisation among academics in 2001 but morerecent regulatory changes in 2005, have returned IP from publicly funded research (but othernot from research funded from other sources) to the institution to enable a more centralisedapproach to commercialisation.The majority of PROs studied have dedicated KTOs staffed by professional knowledgetransfer staff – typically with experience of both the academic and business environment plusspecific skills in project management, sector expertise, relationship management andmarketing and communications. Whether a KTO employs legal expertise or outsources thisrole is largely dependent on the scale of the IP commercialisation undertaken. A smallernumber of those studied do not have a dedicated KTO but have a more embedded structurefor the support of knowledge transfer activities (see section 5.5)In terms of the geographical focus of knowledge transfer activities, PRO strategies aredependent on the scale and quality of the research undertaken and reputation of theindividual PRO. Large internationally renowned research intensive PROs have aninternational market for their knowledge and will regularly engage with large multi-nationalcorporations and, in some cases, attract such businesses to their location. This does not meanthat they have no national or regional focus to their KT activities, as these PROs often have ahigher number of spin-outs and may establish incubators or science parks to house them andattract other high-tech businesses to the area – such as high-tech clusters around theuniversities of Oxford and Cambridge. Meanwhile, top-performing national PROs will workwith businesses on a national and possibly local level, while smaller and more regionallyfocused PROs will tend to support the businesses in their region and the local SME base. TheUniversity of Debrecen has, for example conducted a market analysis of the businesses in itsregion to better understand their needs and develop their knowledge transfer activities andprocesses accordingly.58 Arundel et al. op.cit (2012) 43
  • 51. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________The University of Hertfordshire, as an ex-technical college, has a long tradition of serving itslocal industrial base in aerospace and pharmaceuticals, and more recently in ITC, and targetsits knowledge transfer activities to these businesses the majority of whom are SMEs. Thereforenot all knowledge transfer strategies are, or should be, the same. The target ‘audience’ forknowledge transfer will be highly dependent on the type of PRO and its national and regionalindustrial context.5.4 Remit and role of KTOsThe breadth of PRO knowledge transfer activities is reflected in wide ranging roles and remitsof KTOs. The remit of KTOs has been expanding with only a small proportion in the samplefocused on IP only, with most having a remit that includes a number of KT mechanisms. Only25% of the European KTOs studied are responsible for just IP (Figure 11). These include justtwo universities (Lund and NTSU) and two research institutes (CNRS and Fraunhofer). One isa large Swedish university and therefore supporting IP exploitation under the professorprivilege model and the other is a medium-sized specialist science and technology university.The research institutes have a different model for KT that matches the organisational structureof these large distributed research organisations. IP exploitation is managed by a centralisedfunction so benefiting from economies of scale and access to specialist expertise, while otherKT mechanisms are the responsibility of the distributed research institutes so keeping themore collaborative activities closer to the individual researchers.More than half of the KTOs are responsible for four or five KT mechanisms. Although itshould be noted that in the smaller and/or more regionally focused universities (Sussex, UTC,Hertfordshire) the responsibility for knowledge transfer is spread much more widely acrossthe institution rather than the sole responsibility of a KTO. Other studies and surveys (such asthe ASTP Survey for 2008) 59 reinforce the findings that KTOs with wide remits are fairlycommonplace. By contrast the USA KTOs are typically only responsible for IP exploitation.Figure 12 provides more detail on the features of PROs and the remit of their KTOs. Apartfrom the USA examples, the remit does tend to align with the type of PRO in terms of itsquality/ research-intensity ranking, age or relative size of the KTO. Size would appear to havesome correspondence to the breadth of remit with larger universities having a smaller KTOremit – either IP exploitation alone or IP exploitation one or two other KT mechanisms. Thismay well be a consequence of their size, as larger and more research-intensive universities willgenerate more IP, not only leading to a larger IP management task but also creating greateropportunities for licensing and spin-outs and therefore a requirement for a dedicated IP team.The two research institute systems studied, CNRS and Fraunhofer, are significant in scale(with 35,000 and 17,000 staff respectively) with geographically dispersed staff. Their KTOshave been established to focus on the commercialisation of IP as might be expected from suchlarge research-only institutions.59 Anthony Arundel and Catalina Bordoy, Summary respondent report: ASTP survey for fiscal year 2008, UNU-MERIT report for the Association of European Science and Technology Transfer Professionals, January 2010 44
  • 52. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 11 Responsibilities of KTOs in the sampleSource: Technopolis case studiesSmaller more regionally focused universities with a greater focus on education than research,such as UTC and the University of Hertsfordshire, tend to have a much wider knowledgetransfer remit, integrating the management of research and education focused knowledgetransfer These PROs make less of a distinction between research and education focusedengagement activities and so enable businesses to easily access training and continualprofessional development as well as research skills and knowledge. In some ways, for thesePROS, the knowledge transfer mission is less of a novelty, as their role has traditionallyfocused on the needs of local businesses and the expansion of their knowledge transferactivities has required less of a cultural shift than for the research-intensive institutions.The relative proportion of IP activity within the KTOs varies, as would be expected,depending on the number of knowledge transfer mechanisms covered, but among thoseresponsible for all mechanisms the proportion is at the 25-35% level. The PROs report thatwhere they do engage in IP commercialisation it is predominantly with the disciplines andsectors already identified as appropriate for IP transfers - life and physical sciences andengineering, pharmaceuticals, electronics and in some cases materials. The PROs also reportthat the IP-based interactions tend to be with a relatively small group of academics and withbusinesses already known to the academics (as reported in reported section 4.2 and as notedby MIT for example).Along with a smaller focus on IP comes a different over-arching function for the KTO – it isless about generating income for the PRO and more about wider dissemination of PROresearch outputs for social benefit. Examples from our sample describe the purpose of the KTOas:  University of Barcelona: “..making available scientific/technical capabilities, research results and know-how generated within the University of Barcelona Group to companies, institutions and society in general” 45
  • 53. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________  University of Tuebingen: “….supporting the use of university research results for the public benefit… the main objective of the university in terms of technology transfer is, simply, to enable the successful transfer of technology for the benefit of the wider society”  KTH Zurich: “transferring knowledge to the private sector and society at large is the primary concern”  MIT: ”The Technology Licensing Office... primary objective being to move the results of research into commercial and societal use and by doing so contribute to economic and social development i.e. the goal is to help new technologies get to market and be put to productive use.”Recent research in the USA reports similar findings, with the key drivers of TTOs beingtranslating the results of research and providing a service for faculty. By contrast very fewUSA TTOs were driven by revenue maximisation. 60 This is further demonstrated by the factthat the majority of TTOs in the USA are not self-financing (see section 5.7). However,somewhat in contradiction to the case studies, recent search in Europe shows that incomegeneration is a key driver of KTOs (reported by 60% of those surveyed) in parallel togenerating possibilities for collaboration in research and teaching (59%), followed bypromoting the diffusion of science and technology (45%). This suggests that in Europe at leastthere is some tension between generating income and diffusing research. While protecting andexploiting IP is not inherently at odds with diffusion – IP protection is essential in some fieldsand sectors – generating, and particularly maximising, income from IP might reduceknowledge diffusion by either deterring potential licensees or limiting the extent of diffusionthrough the granting of exclusive licences.The wider knowledge transfer objective of PROs means that the KTO is just one of many actorsinvolved. Knowledge transfer is, at its heart, the interaction of individual academics (or smallgroups of academics) with a person (or small group of people) in a business – this is where theactual process of transfer and exchange happens. Even where IP is involved it is common forfurther interactions between the academic inventor and the businesses to take place. Thereforethe role of the KTO, in the main, is to support the KT interactions of researchers. This is not tosay that the role of a centralised, dedicated and professional KTO is not important, but that itsrole should be to maximise the volume and impact of KT activities carried out by academicstaff.In support of PROs’ knowledge transfer objectives a typical KTO conducts the followingactivities: Marketing and communications  Communicate to industry the knowledge and skills existing within PROs  Conduct research to understand business needs, seek new opportunities for knowledge transfer and pro-actively promote interactions between industry and the PRO Identifying opportunities for knowledge transfer (including IP exploitation) through their awareness of the collaborative/contract R&D and consultancy undertaken by the PRO60 Abrams et al. op. cit (2009) 46
  • 54. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________ Ensuring professional and efficient practical interactions with businesses  Develop efficient processes within the PRO (for writing and signing contracts, delivery of outputs, IP management etc.)  Relationship management (with key industrial contacts, new enquiries and with academics)  Project management  Support academics in their business interactions  Disseminate good practice within PRO Contributing to the development of an entrepreneurial skills base within the PRO through training, publishing guidelines etc.Definitions used in Figure 12 below PRO type Description PRO size Description Top European universities (ranked in top 50 in THES Less than 1,500 academic 1 2011/12); in innovation leader, or top performing S staff countries (Pro-INNO definition) TOP non-university research performers ; in innovation 2 leader, or top performing countries (Pro-INNO M 1,501 to 3,999 academic staff definition) Medium-high ranking universities; in innovation More than 4,000 academic 3 leader, top performing countries or follower country L staff (Pro-INNO definition) Less-research intensive universities but with strong 4 /interesting KTO function /model 5 PROs in new member states / peripheral regions 6 PROs in USAKEY:Large KTO (with respect to staff numbers): >1% of academic N.B. The three PROs below at the bottomstaff of the table do not have standalone KTOsHigh-quality, research-intensive PRO (based on THES2011/2012ranking)USA PROKTO established (in some form) before 2000 47
  • 55. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment ____________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 12 PROs and the breadth of activity in terms of KT mechanisms Contract R&D / of IP activity to IP exploitation access to skills Relative scale Collab R&D / Age of KTO* partnerships partnerships mechanisms Size of PRO Size of TTO consultancy Promoting/ (estimated) Promoting other KT informal PRO type PRO Colorado University 6 L 20 2002 All IP Y N N N N (USA) University of North 6 M 12 1995 All IP Y N N N N Carolina (USA) 6 MIT (USA) M 34 1983 All IP Y N N N N Norwegian University 3 of Science and M 18 2004 All IP Y N N N N Technology 1 Lund University (SE) M 20 1995 - Y N N N N 2 Fraunhofer (DE) L 18 1999 - Y N N N N 2 CNRS (FR) L 47 1992 - Y N N N N University of Oxford IP: other 1 L 74 1988 Y Y N N N (UK) 60:40 University of Aarhus 2000/ IP: other 1 L 15 Y N Y Y N (DK) 2003 50:50 University of 1980s/ IP: other 3 L 6 Y Y N Y N Tuebingen (DE) 2002 80:20 3 University of Milan (IT) M 6 2005 - Y N Y Y N IP:other University of Barcelona 52 (46 3 L 1983 25:75 Y Y Y Y N (ES) FTE) University Libre 1990s/ IP:other 3 M 19 Y Y Y Y N Bruxelles (BE) 2003 33:67 University College 10.5 IP:other 3 M 2003 Y N Y Y Y Dublin (IE) FTEs 40:60 University of Debrecen 2006 Limited IP 4 S 11 Y Y Y Y N (HG) Mayasark University 4 M 8 FTEs 2005 - Y Y Y Y Y (CZ) Delft University of 2000/ IP:other 1 M 35 Y Y Y Y Y Technology (NL) 2004 20:80 1995/ IP:other 1 ETH Zurich (CH) S 14 Y Y Y Y Y 2005 35:65 Not 4 Maribor University (SI) - know 2005 - Y Y Y Y Y n University of Sussex 2004/ 1 S n/a Limited IP Y Y Y N Y (UK) 2008 Université de 1987/ Limited IP 4 Technologie de - n/a Y Y Y N Y 2006 Compiègne (FR) University of 4 S n/a n/a Limited IP Y Y Y Y Y Hertfordshire (UK)* denotes a KTO that existed in an original form (1st date) and was modified into its current form (2nd date). A blank denotes where the information was not available 48
  • 56. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________5.5 Organisational structures and governance5.5.1 Organisational structureKTOs can be organised in three distinct ways: Internal units or specialised departments within PROs External subsidiary organisations working outside of a PRO which are usually wholly owned by the PRO, Public or private, independent KTO intermediaries serving more than one PROAll three organisational models exist in Europe with the latter ‘pooled’ services model beingmost common in countries where national policy has encouraged or actively supported suchan approach, usually at the regional level, as in Germany, Finland and Denmark.None of the PROs case studied was part of a multi-PRO KTO. All structured their KTO aseither an internal support function or an external, but wholly owned, subsidiary. The choicebetween the two structures is largely due to national and institutional contextual factors.External KTOs are established for example to avoid rigid and/or bureaucratic PROadministrative structures, to separate a potentially profit-making business from a publicinstitution, to provide the KTO with a higher degree of autonomy to act, or to separate thepotential liabilities associated with IP and spin-outs. In some countries there have also been taxadvantages for external KTOs. In the sample, 58% of European KTOs were internal to the PRO,26% external and 16% a combination of both – where, in the case of Lund and UTC forexample, the function of investing in proof-of-concept or spin-outs, or the consultancy functionis managed by an external (but wholly owned) body and the rest of the knowledge transferactivity is managed internally.Figure 13 Organisational structures of KTOsSource: Technopolis 49
  • 57. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________One of the key issues is the ability for KTOs to respond and interact with businesses quicklyand efficiently. This often led to the very early KTOs, such as at the Universities of Oxford andBarcelona, establishing external KTOs outside the university bureaucracy. This enabled theseKTOs, that were predominantly focused on IP exploitation, to act quickly and make deals withbusinesses. However, this structure also led to criticism from some academics that the KTO, byavoiding internal processes, was not acting in the best interests of PRO as a whole.Most KTOs in the sample are organised as internal functions within the PRO with a fair degreeof autonomy with respect to decision-making, which may include delegated authority to signcontracts or a very close working relationship with the contracts and/or research supportfunction. In PROs, particularly in New Member States, where only the PRO president or rectorcan sign contracts, causing significant delays for IP agreements, contract R&D etc., an externalKTO model may be chosen. It is interesting to note that the external organisational model isless common in the USA; the three USA KTOs (which only focus on IP exploitation) aremanaged as internal functions but with considerable autonomy; at MIT and the University ofNorth Carolina for example the head of the KTO can sign licence agreements, and theUniversity of Colorado the head of the KTO reports directly to the Vice-President of theuniversity.Fundamentally KTOs need to engage effectively with the researchers as well as businesses, asit is the researchers who ultimately interact with businesses and therefore operational modelsand staff need to be able to work in both directions – inwards towards the PRO and outwardsto industry.The Technical University of Delft has a matrix organisational model. Its KTO is structured as a‘hub and spokes’ with an external central KTO team plus (internal) departmental KT staffemployed and managed within the departmental structure. This model benefits from theeconomies of scale for specific KT activities (strategy, marketing and communications etc.) andprofessional expertise (IP management, contract negotiation, spin-out creation etc.) and theproximity of KTO staff to researchers. Other PROs have a similar approach: the University ofHertfordshire has a similar model but with both the central and departmental teams beingfully within the university employment and administrative structures; and CNRS, as a verylarge research organisation has a central KTO (in this case focused only on IP) that works inpartnership with 20 regional ‘Partnership and Knowledge Transfer Services’ and withknowledge transfer correspondents in each of its ten large Research Institutes. Empiricalstudies suggest that the matrix model is most effective as it balances access to centralisedspecialist expertise in knowledge transfer (in the KTO) with enabling direct contact betweenresearchers and industry. 61Interestingly in the USA, where most TTOs are focused on the exploitation of IP, the majorityof TTOs appear to be organised as internal functions.6261 Koenraad Debackere and Reinhilde Veugelers, The role of academic Technology Transfer Organisations in improving Industry-Science links, Research Policy, 34 (3), 2005, 321-34262 Abrams et al. op. cit (2009) (86% of TTOs surveyed were organised as internal functions) 50
  • 58. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________The literature also suggests that the KTOs’ organisational structure and capabilities are keydeterminants of KT effectiveness as these can drive, or obstruct, the effective functioning ofTTOs. Empirical studies on the performance of KTOs found that the specific characteristics ofthe organisation of knowledge transfer, that is, information-processing and coordinationcapabilities and incentive alignment capacity, have shaped technology transfer activities andalso account for differences in the development and performance of KTOs. 63 Important issuesinclude: An appropriate balance between centralisation and decentralisation within academia, including the creation of a dedicated transfer unit that brings together the specialised resources needed to do the job The design of appropriate incentive structures for academic research groups The implementation of appropriate decision and monitoring processes within the KTO A transparent and well-articulated IPR regimeIn a number of the PRO studied the organisational structures have changed: The University of Sussex closed its external TTO (focused solely on IP) and brought the function back in house to align it more closely with wider knowledge transfer activities. It was felt that, as industry is best placed in terms of skills and resources to commercialise technology, an IP-focused and income driven TTO was not the best model to facilitate a more open and collaborative interaction with business The Norwegian University for Science and Technology, with an external KTO, has been considering whether an internal KTO function, more integrated with the university, might be a more appropriate structure for the future. The University of Aarhus recently considered changing to an external KTO where parts of the TTO should be incorporated as a public limited company. Such a move, it was thought, might facilitate the establishment of a more dynamic and outward looking environment. However, a recent study on reform at Aarhus came to no strong conclusions as to the need for organisational change 64 – suggesting that it is far more important to identify the right people and to manage them well, rather than worry about the organisational form itself. The report highlighted that some of the best technology transfer environments in the world operate as integrated units within university administrative structures. The Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen (EKUT), while part of a German regional multi- PRO independent KTO set up to undertake commercialisation services for all universities in its remit, also set up its own KTO. It made the decision that knowledge transfer was so important that it needed to be conducted internally, with direct links to the university (through physical location, personal relationships and governance structure). A number of German universities have taken this route (i.e. establishing their own local KTO) and they are considered to be more successful than those relying on an independent multi-PRO KTO function.63 Janet Bercovitz, Maryann Feldman, Irwin Feller and Richard Burton, Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26 (1-2), 2001, 21-3564 Sachi Hatakenaka and Quentin Thompson, Aarhus University: Reform Review – Final Report, University of Aarhus, 2010 51
  • 59. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________These changes in organisational structure reflect the shift in emphasis from technology toknowledge transfer, and therefore less of a focus on the process of IP management andexploitation and more of a focus on developing relationships with academics and industry - sorequiring the KTO itself to work more closely with its research community.The PROs cases studied identified the advantages and disadvantages of the internal andexternal models for KTOs (Figure 14). The issues all centre on a balance between a closealignment of purpose between the KTO and the wider PRO and the autonomy and flexibilityto act. The former is more easily achieved within an internal KTO, while the latter, historicallywas thought to be more easily achieved through an external KTO. However, the sample showsthat a degree of autonomy for the PRO can be achieved within the PRO and so perhaps theexternal model will be less favoured as the knowledge transfer mission becomes moreembedded within the PRO – in terms of institutional strategy and mission, organisation andmanagement and physical location - and as PROs modernise and reduce bureaucracy.Nevertheless, the final decision as to the design, role and operation of a KTO lies with thePRO, in order to develop a solution to meet the requirements of its institutional andgeographic context.Figure 14 Advantages and disadvantages of KTO organisational structure INTERNAL KTO EXTERNAL KTOAdvantages  The KTO staff are employed by the  Greater autonomy and freedom and PRO, and therefore fundamentally flexibility to act as they see fit - and act aligned with the PRO’s mission. This quickly provides the KTO and its staff greater  A business culture more akin to its business legitimacy, from the point of view of clients, as a result of its responsibility (to academic staff as they are part of the greater and lesser degrees depending on the same system exact model) for its own strategy, operations  Being closely aligned with the research and finances mission and research administrative  Clearly demonstrates to industry the PRO’s function enables the KTO to be more intention to engage in knowledge transfer aware of all the research contracts that  More potential for economies of scale in the are conducted within the PRO which provision of specialist services aids the process of indentifying research outputs, including IP, with application potential  Physical and intellectual proximity to researchersDisadvantages  The potential to be caught up in PRO  Creates a boundary between the KTO and the administrative bureaucracy and so wider PRO reducing its ability to respond to  This can lead to a reduced legitimacy with industrial needs quickly and flexibly academic staff, discouraging academics from  (In some cases) restrictions on engaging with the KTO as there is a concern employment salaries and terms which that it does not represent the PRO’s or make it difficult to recruit professional academics’ best interests. KTO staff  The establishment of a culture that places knowledge transfer outside of every day duties and activities of the PRO and individual academics – potentially decreasing the level of knowledge transfer activity  If physically separated from the PRO these disadvantages can be exaggerated 52
  • 60. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________5.5.2 GovernanceThe governance of KTOs, where it sits in the PRO management structure and to whom it isresponsible reflects its importance within the institution and its alignment with, or distancefrom, other key missions and activities.The early KTOs, focused on IP exploitation, were seen not only as a means to conducttechnology transfer but also as revenue generators and, as a result, were often positionedwithin the finance structures of PROs. However, among the sample this no longer seems to bethe standard approach to KTO governance. All but one of the KTOs studied have taken theview that the transfer of knowledge generated from research is best managed as part of thePRO’s research mission. The senior member of staff with responsibility for the KTO and theknowledge transfer mission more generally, is usually the Vice-Rector (or equivalent) forResearch or, increasingly, a dedicated Vice-Rector with responsibility for innovation/enterprise/knowledge transfer (the title varies somewhat institution to institution) who worksclosely with the Vice-Rector for Research - for example: University College Dublin has a VicePresident for Innovation; the University of Barcelona has a Vice-Rector for Innovation andKnowledge Transfer; the Norwegian University for Science and Technology has a Vice-Rectorfor Innovation and External Relations and University Libre Bruxelles has a Vice Rector forInstitutional Relations and the Transfer of Knowledge. In a few cases the KTO reports directlyto the President/ Rector’s office. Only one of the KTOs studied is governed via a financialmanagement route (the KTO at the University of Oxford) but even so, this KTO has close day-to-day working relationships with the Vice-Chancellor for Research and the research supportadministrative function. This positioning of KTOs either within, or close to, the governancestructures for research reflects the alignment of KTOs with the research mission and theirbroad remit to transfer knowledge for societal benefit, rather than an overtly financial role (asdescribed in section 5.4).Some of the regional PROs in the sample align their knowledge transfer function with bothresearch and teaching, reflecting a combination of their lower research-intensity and a strongfocus on education and training in support of local businesses. They tend to make less of adistinction between research and education when supporting local businesses – aiming to findthe best solution to company needs as appropriate. Often these PROs have a long tradition ofbusiness engagement (often longer than the more research-intensive PROs) as their role hasbeen to meet the needs of their local business and social communities.At an operational level the KTOs have a close working relationship with the internal researchsupport function - that is the staff that support the bidding, management and administrationof research grants and projects.It is also common for KTOs, especially those established as external bodies, also to report tocommittees or boards. The role of the boards and committees varies from strategic tooperational as does their composition – with some composed solely of PRO staff (which mayinclude senior management staff only or include practising researchers) and others includingrepresentatives from industry (e.g. Lund, NTNU, Milan)– although industry representation isunusual. Some KTOs also act in an advisory role, providing advice on knowledge transferstrategy to senior management. 53
  • 61. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Despite the variation in governance models in an operational sense (committees, boards etc.),as is to be expected for the wide range of PRO institutions and national contexts across Europe,there is a clearly consistent view, within PROs, that knowledge transfer is not a separatemission but one that is closely aligned with their core missions – most commonly withresearch, but also with education.5.6 ResourcesThe majority of KTOs are small relative to the size of the PRO. The case studied KTOs havebetween 6 and 74 staff; on average this represents around 0.7% of total academic staff (Figure12). ETH Zurich is an outlier as a small university with a relatively large KTO. Larger surveysshow that European KTOs are slightly smaller than their counterparts in the USA. In Europethe average size of a KTO is 8 staff (median 6) and in the USA the average size is 12 staff(median 7). 65The small KTO size limits the ability to act but also reinforces their role as supporting theknowledge transfer activity of the researchers themselves. Nevertheless most KTOs feel thatthere is more they can do, as at present they work mostly with academics that are willing toengage and/or already have a track record of industrial interactions, and they would be ableto increase knowledge transfer activities with more resources.KTOs employ highly qualified staff with experience in both academia (often holding PhDs)and businesses, enabling them to understand and bridge the very different academic andbusiness cultures. Depending on the size of the KTO they may be supported by professional IPexperts and marketing and communications staff. While knowledge transfer as a professionhas been developing and growing over recent years there is a general concern among KTOs asto their ability to attract and recruit suitably qualified staff. This is in part due to the veryspecific experience required but also, due to PRO and/or national restrictions on salaries andreward for what are considered to be administrative roles.5.7 Costs and benefits of operating KTOsThe costs of operating a KTO or TTO consist primarily of staff costs (salaries and othercompensation, accommodation, equipment, etc.) and IP protection costs. In all but the largestand most active PROs, staff costs are larger than patent costs. In the USA TTOs report staff andpatents costs as almost equal. A reasonably large KTO of 20 staff costs €2-2.5 million tooperate, plus there are the costs relating to the inputs of individual researchers.Early technology transfer policy expected TTOs to not only act as mechanisms for innovationthrough IP exploitation but also as a revenue generator for PROs. The experience of the last 20years, in the USA and Europe, has demonstrated that most PROs do not generate significantrevenue from IP. Studies consistently show that a small number of PROs account for a largeshare of IP income:65 Abrams et al. op. cit (2009); Arundel et al. op.cit (2012) 54
  • 62. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________ The 2010 AUTM survey of 183 respondents from research universities, hospitals/medical centers and research institutes in the USA reported that the total licensing income was $2.4 billion. 66 However the distribution was highly skewed with the 5% of the universities accounting for 41% of the income, with these PROs receiving in the range of $65-180 million each. By contrast just under a half of the universities had an income less than $1 million. Recent surveys of European KTOs conducted in 2008 and 2011 report a similar skewed distributions of licensing income: in both surveys the leading 10% of universities accounted for approximately 85% of licence income. 67 Furthermore these universities accounted for the majority share (at least 40%) of other knowledge transfer activities measured including patents granted, licences executed and spin-outs established (Figure 15). Furthermore the majority of income is generated from patents and licences in the biomedical field – in the 2011 European survey, 89%, of €346 million in reported license income was from biomedical inventions.Figure 15 ASTP survey 2008: percentage of KT outcomes by the leading 10% of PROsSource ASTP 6866 AUTM, op. cit (2010)67 Anthony Arundel, Catalina Bordoy, Summary respondent report: ASTP survey for fiscal year 2008, UNU- MERIT and ASTP, January 2010; Arundel et al. op.cit (2012)68 Arundel, op. cit (2010) 55
  • 63. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________The skewed distribution is a result of the uncertainty inherent in innovation activities and thatmeans it is not possible to predict which investments will be successful – and the variability inthe quantity and quality of the research conducted at PROs. More research leads to moreopportunities for the generating IP, while higher quality research institutions either generate‘better IP’ or make more attractive partners for industry (or perhaps a combination of both).Therefore, in the USA in 2010 for example, the leading research PROs tend to dominate thelicence income, including New York, Columbia and Stanford universities, the University ofCalifornia system and MIT (Figure 16). The high ranking of the relatively small (in researchactivity terms) universities of Northwestern and Wake Forest in the list is the result oflicensing income received from single highly successful patents in the medical field – again,reinforcing the skewed pattern of success. Once these technologies are no longer protected theincome will dry up.For this very reason the Technology Licensing Office at MIT reports that licensing income isnot used as a key performance measure due to its high variability and the fact that success isbeyond the control of the university. For similar reasons the AUTM survey, while reportinglicensing income of PROs, has for a number of years not discussed or analysed the incomedata. 69As a result very few TTOs/KTOs, even in the USA, are financially self-sustainable. In 2009only 16% of USA TTOs reported being self-sustaining in financial terms, with most relying onfinancial support from the central PRO budget. 70 This was also the case for the case studieswith only three KTOs reporting themselves to self-financing (Oxford, Barcelona andFraunhofer). The others were not covering their financial costs. Both Oxford and Barcelona arelarge research universities with long-standing KTOs with over 20 years experience. Oxford is aworld-class research-intensive university, ranked in the top five internationally. As a resultOxford’s KTO income is derived largely from IP, while Barcelona’s is a mixture of IP andproject management fees for contract R&D and competitive research projects. FraunhoferVentures supports the entire Fraunhofer Society and so has access to the outputs of the largepool of applied research conducted by its research institutes. However like Northwestern andForest Bank universities in the USA, its licence income is dominated by a single patent (in thiscase for MP3 technology). Likewise, the CNRS KTO was self-financing until a few years agowhen a single licence agreement came to an end.69 AUTM, AUTM US Licensing Survey: FY 2007 – Survey Summary70 Abrams et al. op. cit (2009) 56
  • 64. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 16 USA university licensing income (2010) 71 % of total licensing income to US Licensing universities University income $M (cumulative)1 Northwestern University 180 8%2 New York University 178 15%3 Columbia University 147 21%4 University of California System 104 25%5 Wake Forest University 86 29%6 University of Minnesota 84 32%7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 69 35%8 University of Washington/Washington Research Foundation 69 38%9 Stanford University 65 41%11 University of Wisconsin-Madison/Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation 54 43%12 California Institute of Technology 52 45%13 University of Rochester 42 47%14 University of Massachusetts 40 49%15 University of Michigan 40 50%16 University of Texas System 38 52%17 University of Utah 38 54%18 University of Florida 29 55%19 University of Iowa Research Foundation 27 56%20 Duke University 26 57% Total (top 20) 1,368 57% Total (all respondents) 2,400Aside from the self-financing KTOs studied, the PROs fund their KTOs through a combinationof university central funds (block grants and/or overheads) and/or public funds specificallydirected at KTOs and knowledge transfer activities. The funding model tends to reflect thewider national (or regional) system for funding PROs. Some countries fund KTOs directly,either during their set-up phase or both set-up ad on-going operations. The European ResearchArea Committee reported in 2011 that nine EU countries (and Norway) 72 have fundingschemes in place for KTOs. Funding may be in the form of direct subsidies to PROs orcompetitive programmes. Other countries require that PROs conduct knowledge transfer butdo not provide dedicated funding streams; in these cases KTOs are funded from PROoverheads.71 AUTM, op. cit. (2010)72 BE, CZ, DK, EE, ES, HU, IE, NL, UK (ERAC Working Group Report on Knowledge Transfer, 2011) 57
  • 65. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Income from other KT mechanisms (i.e. not from IP) such as collaborative/contract R&D andconsultancy result in additional research income for researchers rather than the KTO itself. Insome cases the KTO is able to charge a management fee on the research income it helps togenerate but this is not the norm, not least because any public funding is unlikely to allow it.Nevertheless this income is important to the PRO. Figure 17 shows the income to UKuniversities generated by different KT mechanisms from public and private sources, with alittle over 43% coming from private sources (34% from large businesses and 9% from SMEs).Collaborative and contract R&D provide the largest share of income, followed by activities insupport of lifelong learning (CPD and CE) and consultancy, while IP exploitation accounts foronly around 5% of the total income from KT.In fact for many of the PROs studied, the remit to conduct knowledge rather than technologytransfer results in an explicit requirement not to generate large-scale cash income. ETH Zurich,for example, has a mandate “to transfer technology through a liberal IP policy that maximizesimpact and not financial returns.” As a number of KTOs have reported, if income were thedriver they would concentrate their activities on a more selective set of inventions that are theclosest to commercialisation. Similarly it is fairly common for the PROs to take a smallshareholding in spin-outs to ensure that the KTO remains aligned first and foremost to thePRO and not to one or two spin-outs. As reported by one PRO, a large shareholding wouldmean that the KTO (or even the PRO) would, in effect, be working for the spin-out and not forthe PRO or the wider public good.As presented in Figure 6 in chapter 4 these other KT mechanisms generate a range of benefitsto PROs and individual business as well as to society rather than direct financial income forthe KTO. Therefore the KTO function (as well as knowledge transfer activities at the researcherlevel) serves an important function supporting and facilitating knowledge transfer and soneeds to be funded. Various funding models are in place across Europe – with some countries(for example UK, Germany and Denmark) providing dedicated knowledge transfer fundingprogrammes. However, in the current economic climate there is concern among some KTOsthat dedicated public programmes and/or PRO support might be withdrawn in order to savecosts. If so, it would be in complete contradiction to public policies at national and Europeanlevels calling for increased knowledge transfer in pursuit of increased innovation.Comparisons of KTO funding models with the USA are difficult to make as the organisationalstructures are quire different. In the USA technology transfer office model still prevails, that isthe offices focus mainly on IP exploitation. However, in the small sample of the USA TTOsstudied only one of the three, MIT, is clearly self-financing from its IP income – while another,the University of North Carolina does not generate a sufficient IP income to cover all of its staffand external costs. Other studies show that that most USA TTOs are funded from the centraluniversity budget. 73 It is important to note that, while the Bayh-Dole Act placed a requirementon PROs to commercialise publicly funded research, it provided no funding to support themto do so. In fact the act has been described as “an unfunded mandate on U.S. academicinstitutions”. 74 In general USA PROs face similar issues to those in Europe, - the TTO/ KTOsare very small compared to the level of research activity (Colorado reports that less than one-tenth of a percent is devoted to technology transfer) and the majority of TTO activity is in themedical and healthcare sector. This suggests that the European experience is not unusual.73 Abrams et al. op. cit (2009)74 Abrams et al. op. cit (2009) 58
  • 66. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 17 PRO income from knowledge transfer mechanisms (UK)Source: HEFCE, HEBCI report 755.8 Assessing performance: knowledge transfer metricsGetting the right metrics for knowledge transfer is essential, as ultimately the metrics guidebehaviour – what you measure is generally what you get. Despite the wide range of knowledgetransfer mechanisms in place across the PROs studied, most report against IP-related metricssuch as numbers of invention disclosures, patents filed/ granted, numbers of licences signed,licence income and numbers of spin-outs created. Not only do these only predominantlymeasure direct outputs of IP activities rather than longer-term impacts (except for licenceincome), but they miss the vast majority of knowledge transfer activities. Most KTOsacknowledge that current metrics are insufficient but are not generally in a position to makeimprovements.However, the good practice is available at both the national and institutional level. The UK hasimplemented an annual knowledge transfer survey of all KTOs based in Higher EducationInstitutes (HEIs). The survey has been developed over nearly 10 years and has created a stableset of metrics that attempt to measure knowledge transfer outputs that encompass a range ofmechanisms including collaborative and contract R&D, consultancy and training forbusinesses (Figure 18). A recent study in the Netherlands has also resulted in the developmentof a set of metrics for knowledge transfer that address the different audiences (Figure 19).75 HEFCE, Higher Education – Business and Community Interaction Survey, 2009-10 59
  • 67. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Some KTOs use a similar metrics to the UK survey. ETH Zurich, for example measures thenumber of collaborations and number of contacts and Masaryk University in the CzechRepublic measures the number of large projects financed. The University of Lund isattempting to assess the impact as well as the outputs of its activities; in 2011 it added thefollowing metrics to track the growth of companies supported in terms of:  Turnover (in the companies supported / that were supported)  Employees (in the companies supported / that were supported)  Capital raising (in the companies supported / that were supported)Lund also intends to collect a customer satisfaction survey from all of the companies withwhich it has interacted in any substantial way. They have also conducted a one-off study totrace the development of companies they have worked with based on published annualaccounts. From this they found that over the last 10 years the companies that had beensupported by KTO had created 2,000 jobs, raised SEK 2 billion in capital and achievedturnover of SEK 1.4 billion (figures accumulated 1999 to 2010).Figure 18 Metrics used by the annual UK survey of knowledge transfer in HEIs 76Category MetricsINCOME Collaborative research Contract research Consultancy Facilities and equipment-related services Continuing professional development and Continuing Education Regeneration and development programmes Intellectual property (including sale of shares)OUTPUTS Patent applications Patents granted Formal spin-offs established Formal spin-offs still active after three yearsWhether the PRO UK higher education institutions that provide:provides: Enquiry point for SMEs Short bespoke courses on clients premises Distance learning for businesses Required contracting system for all consultancy76 HEFCE, op. cit. (2010) 60
  • 68. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 19 Newly developed metrics in the Netherlands (not yet implemented) 77 Private sector Professionals/ Public sector General publicPatents Articles in public journals Popular science publicationsLicenses Products and services for public Interviews en articles in the sector mediaSpin-offs/start-ups Guidelines and protocols public Web publications sectorProducts/services in private Education material / courses (Web- of digital) products formarket public sector general publicCooperation in research Lectures for public Media coverage organisationsConsultations by companies Public positions, management Public lectures function public organisationsPrices / awards by Involvement end-users in Involvement of consumers incompanies research researchPublic-private mobility Consultation by public Prizes and awards professionalsCourses Life long learning Courses Life long learning for Public positions, managementfor companies public organisations function public organisationsAlumni/PhDs working at Awards/prizes by public References in the mediacompanies organisationsTurnover from patents and Alumni/PhDs working in the Sale products and serviceslicenses public sectorTurnover from spin-offs en References in public journals, Use of products and services bystart-ups policy documents, etc. general public (e.q. websites)Turnover form products and Policy studies, studies for Number of visitors at exhibitions,services public organisations etc.Citations by companies Use of products and services in Number of exhibitions public sectorFinancial support companies Financial support by public Cataloguesfor research organisations Radio, TV programmes, dvds77 Rathenau Institute & Technopolis, aardevol Indicatoren voor Valorisatie, voor de Landelijke Commissie Valorisatie, June 2011 61
  • 69. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________5.9 Good practiceThe PROs studied report that there many sources of good practice available at both theregional, national and European level. As the profession of knowledge transfer has developedprofessional institutions and societies have been established such as ProTon Europe, theEuropean Knowledge Transfer Association (created in 2003 by the European Commission andself supporting since 2007) and the Association of European Science and Technology TransferProfessionals (ASTP) created in 1999. Both offer best practice guidance and formal professionaldevelopment for knowledge transfer staff. At the national and regional level many countrieshave networks and associations within which KTO (and wider PRO) staff can meet toexchange best practice such as the Institute for Knowledge Transfer in the UK, Netval in Italy,LIEU (Liaison Entreprises-Universités) in the French speaking community of Belgium. Someoperate at the level of individual professionals and others at institutional level. In addition theLeague of European Research Universities (LERU) include knowledge transfer in its remit andhas recently published an Advice Paper on TTOs.When establishing or modifying a KTO, it is common for PROs to seek best practice andadvice from other institutions. Some well-established PROs make their knowledge transferand IP strategies and guidelines for staff publicly available on-line and these are valued highlyby other KTOs. In some cases PROs setting up KTOs have visited a number of KTOs to betterunderstand how they operate. However the low membership numbers in European levelassociations suggests that best practice is being shared largely between the early adoptingcountries with very little spreading to the later adopters and lagging countries and PROs. Forexample, there are currently 112 members of ProTon with the majority (92%) from EU15countries (Figure 20). This is not a criticism of ProTon but a reflection of that fact that only asmall number of Europe’s PRO base of around 4,500 institutions are seeking best practice at aEuropean level. Membership of national organisations is higher but this does not help the flowof best practice from, in particular the more experienced PROs and countries to the laggingones. Therefore there is a significant opportunity to increase cross-border learning.Nevertheless, there is a widespread view among KTOs that, while there is much to learn fromeach other, operational models cannot be directly copied. Each PRO operates within a differentnational, regional and institutional environment and with different underpinning traditionsand cultures and therefore, each must identify the knowledge transfer mission and KTO modelbest suited to their context. The extent to which they focus on formal IP will tend to depend onthe degree to which their external customers are science-based. 62
  • 70. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 20 Membership of ProTon Europe by countryCountry (EU15) No. of members Country (NMS) No. of membersAUSTRIA 1 CROATIA 2BELGIUM 9 CZECH REPUBLIC 3DENMARK 6 SLOVAKIA 2FINLAND 5FRANCE 4GERMANY 12GREECE 2HUNGARY 2IRELAND 11ITALY 28LUXEMBOURG 2NETHERLANDS 2PORTUGAL 6SPAIN 14UNITED KINGDOM 1EU15 103 (92%) NMS 9 (8%)Grand Total 1125.10 Pan-European knowledge transferAs described in section 5.3.2 the geographical focus of PRO knowledge transfer strategies isdependent on the type of PRO, with the large internationally renowned research intensivePROs being the ones most likely to engage in international knowledge exchange. Thereforepan-European and wider international knowledge transfer has tended to be limited in scaleand centred on the world-class institutions.While the Commission has many programmes to support cross-border activities in researchand innovation, the most comprehensive approach to date to integrating research, knowledgetransfer capabilities and higher education are the Knowledge and Innovation Communities(KICs) of the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT). The KICs have a strongfocus on knowledge transfer and developing entrepreneurial skills in support of improvedinnovation performance. Building on the knowledge transfer capabilities of their constituentmembers, both in PROs and industry, they seek to increase opportunities to access researchoutputs, skills, and innovation partners across a wider geographical base.Knowledge transfer is a key feature of the KICs; not only embedded in the requirements forformal partnerships between PROs and industry but also through the implementation of thefull range of knowledge transfer mechanisms and KTO activities – developing strategicresearch agenda across all partners, supporting collaborative research, developingentrepreneurial skills, supporting IP exploitation and the creation and support of spin-outs(see Figure 21) etc. 63
  • 71. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________However the KICs have only been fully operational for a relatively short period of time, 18months at most, and therefore the extent of the effectiveness of their new models ofengagement and their impact on innovation has yet to be seen. Nevertheless they havedeveloped considerable experience in developing a number of different legal approaches toinnovation partnerships and conducting cross-border knowledge transfer. Therefore they offeran important resource for learning and potential good practice in knowledge transfer moregenerally.Figure 21 KICs planned activities for innovation support and entrepreneurialism 78Innovation Support and Entrepreneurialism“InnoEnergys planned activity in this field encompass: services for business creation;exploration and networking activities; innovation infrastructure (incubators, knowledge andinnovation market platform, observatory and pre-seed fund), Innovation NetworkDevelopment Unit and IP support activities.Climate-KICs Climate-KIC Entrepreneurs innovation support component "seeks to offersupport to the wider climate change entrepreneurs community", aiming to provide sharedworkspace and research facilities; as well as to exploit existing instruments and facilities at co-location centres (e.g. incubators and science parks, and courses). The intention is to expandexisting innovation support infrastructures at co- location centres. Other activities plannedinclude an Ideas Market Place (for entrepreneurs to share ideas), Greenhouse (providing six-month stipends for entrepreneurs to develop their innovative concepts up to proof-of-conceptstage), SME innovation vouchers, a start-up advisory group and a climate venture competition.In its 2011 Business Plan ICT Labs targets entrepreneurship support systems ("...a programme tostimulate birth and growth of new companies"); the EIT Innovation Radar (a virtual expert panel toassist in attaining "global thought leadership" in ICT); international best-practicebenchmarking; networking platform for networking between entrepreneurs and venturecapitalists; access to finance service; and pre-venture grants (fixed loans for researchers topursue commercialisation possibilities).In terms of commercialisation activity, KICs are largely still considering various types ofsupport; but the indications are that technology transfer (large established firms and newer,smaller ones); product development and SME engagement will be targeted. There is evidenceof enhanced institutional cooperation via KIC structures, and plans to use KICs to target theprovision of support for start-up businesses, primarily by augmenting and/or exploitingexisting provision in this field. Since many KIC partners already have access totechnology/science parks and incubation facilities, the value of KICs is more concerned withscale – for example, KICs have reported leasing additional work-space in existing provision (tobe used for industry partners to re-locate staff to work on joint projects).”The evaluation also states that ”Another likely outcome is that the rate of spin-offs emergingfrom existing incubation capacity will be increased through the application of KIC resources.”78 DG EAC, External Evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. Final Report On Evaluation May 2011 64
  • 72. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________5.11 Summary Knowledge transfer offices  The role of KTOs in innovation systems is to reduce the transaction costs of transferring uncertain and often un-codifiable knowledge from PROs to industry by  Bridging the cultural barriers between PRO researchers and industry  Professionalising the interactions and relationships  Helping PROs to become essential components of an inter-connected innovation system  In the early-adopting countries, PROs are no longer restricted by formal national laws or regulations that bar or hinder academics from participating in knowledge transfer and national innovation policies are in place that either require or encourage PROs to engage in knowledge transfer. In these countries, PROs have policies in place that define: IP ownership; responsibilities for managing and protecting IP; and for sharing of revenue derived from IP.  However just under a third of European Member States do not have national legislation/ regulation/ policies in place regarding the knowledge transfer role and IP ownership rules for PROs  The PROs with significant experience of knowledge transfer recognise that it encompasses a range of KT mechanisms and as a result they engage in, and support, the use of all mechanisms. Very few institutions have KTOs that focus solely on IP exploitation. The role of KTOs is, instead, to maximise the volume and impact of knowledge transfer activities carried out by academic staff through the professionalisation of the industrial interface and the widening of academic participation in knowledge transfer.  As a result, most PROs have institutional strategies that explicitly include a broad knowledge transfer mission. A member of the PRO leadership team, usually the vice-rector (or equivalent) for research, is allocated responsibility for knowledge transfer and there is an expectation that academic staff will increasingly engage in knowledge transfer activities. Furthermore, the term ‘knowledge exchange’ is increasingly being used to better reflect the two-way flow of knowledge between PROs and businesses.  KTOs are structured in a number of ways both internal and external to the PRO and, as there are advantages and disadvantages of different approaches, no one model prevails. What is essential is that the structure is able to ensure a common mission for the KTO and academics while giving the KTO a fair degree of autonomy to undertake commercial negotiations with industrial organisations. The physical and intellectual proximity of the KTO to academic researchers is more important that the actual form of the organisational structure.  A knowledge transfer profession has been developing over the last 10-15 years, with KTOs increasingly staffed by knowledge transfer professionals. These are typically people with research backgrounds (often a PhD) and relevant business experience and/or specific professional experience in areas such as intellectual property, finance and marketing and communications.  Very few KTOs generate a surplus from their IP activities; and other KT mechanisms, such as consultancy and contract/collaborative R&D, do not generate revenue for the KTO itself. Therefore, even though KTOs are very small in resource terms making up less than 1% of PRO staff, most require financial support either from central PRO finances or dedicated public support from funding agencies.  Current knowledge transfer metrics focus too heavily on IP exploitation (numbers of invention disclosures, patents, licences and licence income etc.) rather than on the wider knowledge transfer activities undertaken. However a number of countries have developed more comprehensive metrics that could be used more widely across Europe.  Good practice is currently shared predominantly at national level. Membership of pan-European KT organisations, for example, is low and heavily focused on the EU15. Therefore opportunities for learning across the EU, especially from the experienced policy-makers, PROs and KTOs to the less experienced, are not being fully exploited. 65
  • 73. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________6. Analysis6.1 The three phases of development of a PRO knowledge exchangemissionThe analysis of the PRO case studies suggests that the transition from two to three missions(teaching, research and knowledge transfer / exchange) occurs in three phases with eachphase requiring different policy interventions and PRO activities (Figure 22): Phase 1: Establishing framework conditions – the creation of formal policy support for knowledge exchange. 79 At a policy-making level this requires the removal of legal and regulatory barriers to knowledge exchange (where they still exist) and the establishment of a strong policy position with respect to knowledge exchange between PROs and industry (and other potential users of PRO-generated knowledge). This stage also requires that methods to financially support the third mission are considered and communicated clearly to PROs. The financing solution may vary with national context and may include direct funding through block or discretionary grants, competitive programmes or indirect funding via a full-economic costing funding model for public research activities. Policies need to acknowledge and promote the wider role of knowledge exchange (i.e. not just focused on IP exploitation) and enable and encourage PROs to deploy a wide range of exchange mechanisms Phase 2: Policy implementation – the development and implementation of knowledge exchange strategies, policies, processes and governance structures at PROs – closely aligned with the research mission.  At the PRO level, this stage includes the development of a knowledge exchange strategy and the creation of professional support for knowledge exchange, typically via a KTO and the recruitment of professional knowledge exchange staff. However the strategy must acknowledge that academic staff are at the heart of the exchange process and operational support put in place, such as training and awareness raising, to encourage and enable their involvement. The knowledge exchange strategies of different types of PROs will be tailored to their regional/national context and societal roles i.e. large research intensive PROs with international reputations build strategies to serve a broad ‘customer’ base at regional, national and international levels, while regionally focused, less research-intensive PROs focus their strategies on a more local level.  During this phase policy-makers continue their support for knowledge exchange and may implement systems to monitor knowledge exchange activities. Phase 3: Embedding a knowledge exchange (third) mission – consolidating a knowledge exchange mission and culture within PROs and across the economy more widely. This stage has not yet been fully achieved by any PROs, but would be expected to entail:79 Historically this support may have focused on technology or knowledge transfer but we now use the wider term ‘knowledge exchange’ to reflect the more recent movements that have taken place in policy thinking in both policy thinking and from the perspective of those implementing PRO-industry interactions. 66
  • 74. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________  The development of an outward-looking and entrepreneurial culture within each PRO, with appropriate incentives and rewards for academics and KTO staff. Over time, embedding PROs within appropriate professional, sector and disciplinary networks. Leading, ultimately, to an increase in the volume of knowledge exchange activity and an increase in the impact of PROs on society.  During this phase policy-makers continue their support for knowledge exchange, monitor outputs and impacts and may consider reviewing and updating knowledge exchange policy.Figure 22 Transition from two to three missionsSource: Technopolis6.2 Where are European PROs in the journey?6.2.1 The sample of PROsThe PROs studied are in Phase 2: appropriate laws and policies have been enacted across mostEU member states giving PROs a third mission to conduct knowledge exchange in support ofsocietal benefit; and PROs have established institutional knowledge exchange strategies andKTOs or similar functions to support professional and effective knowledge exchange.None of the PROs studied has truly reached Phase 3, except perhaps MIT. Achieving a fullyembedded knowledge exchange mission will take considerable time. Behavioural and culturalchange is a notoriously slow process and there is still resistance to change within the academiccommunity. Even amongst the early-adopters there is still a long way to go before the thirdmission is a truly embedded feature of PROs. 67
  • 75. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________The earliest adopters who have been engaged in some form of pro-activetechnology/knowledge transfer and exchange for over 20 years, such as the Universities ofOxford and Barcelona, and have yet to achieve Phase 3. However, their experience enablesthem to identify the remaining challenges and some have started to take steps to address them.The three phases as described above characterise the third mission throughout as knowledgeexchange, where in reality, for many early-adopters phases 1 and 2 have also included atransition both at national and individual PRO level, from a technology transfer to a broaderknowledge transfer and exchange focus.6.2.2 The sample vs. the populationIn many ways our sample was skewed towards individual PROs that have a well-defined KTOfunction – as they were both readily identifiable and willing to engage in the study. As aresult, many of them are at a reasonable stage of development towards Phase 3 and anembedded knowledge exchange mission.However looking at national innovation systems in Europe (and their PROs) more generally,each is at a different stage of development towards an embedded knowledge exchangemission. This is mainly due to the fact that European countries started on the journey at verydifferent times. Evidence suggests that a large proportion of European PROs still have a longway to go; as illustrated in Figure 10 the ERAC review of knowledge transfer in Europereports that 70% of current Member States have put in place laws, regulations and/or policiesfor knowledge exchange, with many of these countries also providing funding to supportcapacity building for knowledge exchange and the development of operational processes. 80Therefore most EU countries have reached Phase 1 with a sub-set, such as the early adoptingcountries in this study, in Phase 2. Nevertheless, this suggests that nearly a third of MemberStates (not all of which are New Member States) have yet to reach Phase 1 and so there is stillconsiderable work to be done to develop the third mission in these countries to ensure theirPROs can fully contribute to innovation.The range of experience in knowledge exchange at both national and PRO level means thatthose in the early phases of development have the potential to learn from the moreexperienced. A particular example of learning would be to avoid focusing policy at national orinstitutional level on increasing or maximising PRO income from exploiting IP as this is onlypossible for a small number of PROs (as shown in section 5.7) and may deflect resources fromother more productive knowledge exchange activities.80 ERAC, op. cit (2011) 68
  • 76. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________6.3 Barriers to achieving an embedded knowledge exchange missionThe PROs that have reached Phase 2 are able to identify the barriers that remain to developinga fully embedded third mission. For this group, policies, processes and structures forknowledge exchange are in place at an operational level. Procedures for conducting contractand collaborative R&D and consultancy are being streamlined, although there are stillimprovements to be made. The most significant remaining barriers are, from the KTOperspective, found in the ‘softer’ areas of culture and tradition. In particular the two key areas:Lack of the culture of knowledge exchange among the academic communityThis is changing but there is still a long way to go. While some academics engage willinglyand enthusiastically in knowledge exchange, many still do not believe that it is part of theirrole as academic researchers. KTOs continue to work hard to raise awareness of the benefits ofknowledge transfer and exchange to the academic community. Many PROs now provide (orrequire) training in entrepreneurship to postgraduate students (and sometimeundergraduates) to prepare them for a career within academia or in the private sector, and as aresult younger researchers are often more at ease with the third mission. However manyresearchers remain to be convinced, not least because the academic career system does notrecognise or reward participation in knowledge exchange and entrepreneurial activities.Academics are not, in the main, motivated by financial gain but by the recognition of theirpeers and career progress within the academic profession. However as long as academic careerprogression remains rewarded in terms of research and teaching activities, knowledgeexchange will remain, to a large extent, extra-curricular.However it is important to get the right metrics and incentives for academics and maintain anappropriate balance between openness (i.e. publication) and protection (i.e. IP guidelines,agreements in collaborative R&D for example). This is particularly important in the early-stageof academic careers as publications during PhDs and post-doctoral posts are essential todeveloping research reputations and career progression.A number of PROs have begun to address this issue and have changed or are consideringchanging the academic career development system. In some countries this is possible at theinstitutional level where PROs, universities in particular, have a high degree of autonomy (e.g.in the UK) but in other countries academic careers are defined at the national level (e.g. thecivil service structure for academic careers in Spain). A small number of examples of earlyadopters of career measures can be found: The University of Hertfordshire has developed an academic career path that recognises and rewards knowledge transfer. It enables academics who engage in significant levels of knowledge transfer to progress in their career (and even select this career path) to full professor. A small number of academics are currently on this career path and the first professorship was recently awarded under the scheme. In addition, the university has a resource planning (IT) system that fully recognises knowledge transfer activities meaning that time can be allocated to knowledge transfer and therefore it is not treated as ‘extra curricular’ At Delft University of Technology academics are subject to regular reviews on their knowledge transfer (or ‘valorisation’) activities that contribute to their career progression. Also, internal allocations for knowledge transfer results in more funding, for the academic, from central funding resources. 69
  • 77. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________ University College Dublin also includes innovation as a criterion for promotion for academics Other European universities have also made moves in this direction – including the universities of Aalto and Eindhoven, and in Italy changes at the national level have led to a new system that includes external income as a measure of performance of individual academics.Recruiting and retaining professional knowledge exchange staffWhile the technology transfer and knowledge exchange profession has grown considerablyover the last 10 to 15 years, PROs still experience difficulties recruiting and retaining KTOstaff. While in some countries the pool of professionals maybe still be relatively small thelarger issue is the ability to reward staff appropriately. It is common practice for KTO staff tobe regarded as part of the PRO’s administrative structure. This can place restrictions on aPRO’s ability to attract and reward high quality staff with both academic and businessexperience. Restrictions may be based in national structures that define PRO career and paysystems or alternatively in a culture of lower salaries for administrative posts. Either way staffare either difficult to find or, once in post, highly mobile. As for the academics, careerstructures for KTO staff need to be suitably flexible to recognise and reward them asappropriate.Lack of suitable metrics for knowledge exchangeMetrics to assess KTO performance and impact remain focused on technology transfer outputs– numbers of invention disclosures, patents filed and approved, licence agreements andlicence income, etc. This is due, in part, to the initial focus on technology transfer but also theconvenience of measuring outputs that are easily identifiable and countable. Nonethelessbetter metrics are required as metrics incentivise and drive behaviour. Outputs of otherknowledge exchange mechanisms are countable (such as the value of consultancy or contractR&D) and a number of countries have developed metrics and data collection processes toassess knowledge exchange activity at a national, as well as PRO, scale.Insufficient sharing of good practice at European level and barriers to cross-borderknowledge exchangeConsiderable experience has been gained in the early-adopting countries and PROs but this isnot being shared as widely as it could be to enable later adopters to benefit. As these countries/PROs move from phase 1 to phase 2 (and later to phase 3) opportunities for them to learnfrom earlier experience would enable them to avoid pitfalls and climb the learning curve muchmore quickly. Furthermore the development of more consistent practices across Europe wouldbetter facilitate cross-border knowledge exchange as differences in strategies and policies atnational and PRO level can impede contract negotiations for cross-border knowledgeexchange, particularly where several PROs are working together with businesses in joint R&Dactivities. Differences in IP arrangements for example are often a cause of contention in R&Dcontract negotiations, slowing down the process and delaying the start of research activities. 70
  • 78. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________An over-focus on technology (IP-based) transferWhile many countries now focus policy on knowledge exchange rather than technologytransfer this is not the case everywhere and this is an area where later adopters can benefitearlier experiences. IP exploitation needs to be acknowledged as just one element inknowledge exchange – more suitable for some PROs and some sectors than others. For mostPROs it will not be the main mechanism deployed. National, European and institutionalpolicies that regard income from IP as a key output of knowledge exchange lead to KTOincentive structures that present additional barriers, due to over-protection of IP, to the flowand exchange of knowledge between PROs and industry. Furthermore an over-aggressiveapproach to IP by PROs can act as a barrier to effective engagement with industry.Fundamentally PROs need to maintain their public good role in society and their third missionneeds to be focused on diffusing knowledge to where it can be put to best use and ensuringthe flow of knowledge into institutions to inform research. Therefore third mission/knowledge exchange policies at European, national and PRO levels need to strike the rightbalance between openness and protection of their research outputs. 71
  • 79. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________7. Summary and Conclusions7.1 Knowledge exchange is required to support innovationAs our understanding of innovation has developed over the past few decades, it has shiftedfrom a linear model where innovation is a result of inventions and knowledge ’pushed’ out ofthe research-base or ‘pulled’ by market demand towards an innovation systems model whereinnovation is a complex process shaped, influenced and enabled by a range of actors,infrastructures, framework conditions and market demands. Businesses are the maininnovation actors in the innovation system, seeking opportunities to utilise their technological,human and organisational capabilities to innovate in order to meet, or even create, marketneeds. The extent to which they are stimulated, supported and enabled to innovate or,alternatively, hindered and discouraged, depends in how well the system functions. As asystem it not only requires the right components - actors, infrastructure, frameworks andincentives etc. - but also well-functioning networks connecting its components and facilitatingthe flow of capital, skills and knowledge.PROs, as actors within innovation systems, have traditionally played a role via their coremissions of education and research – providing skilled graduates to industry and contributingto the available knowledge stock. However, over the past 15-20 years they have beenincreasingly assigned an additional third mission to pro-actively transfer their research-generated knowledge to industry and to society more widely. Early policy, based upon thelinear model of innovation and modelled on changes in the system in the USA, conceived thisas a direct role in the commercialisation of their own research results via the exploitation ofprotectable intellectual property through patenting, licensing and the creation of spin-offbusinesses – activities generally referred to as technology transfer. This led to legal andregulatory changes that enabled PROs to engage in technology transfer, removing legalbarriers to business engagement and, most notably, the transfer of IP ownership of the outputsof publicly funded research from either individual researchers or the state to the PROsthemselves - a process that essentially duplicated the Bayh-Dole Act in the USA, with the aimof replicating its perceived success. Policy changes also required or encouraged (usuallythrough funding) PROs to establish processes and resources to undertake technology transferleading to the creation of Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) tasked with managing andexploiting PRO IP. Early mover countries, largely in the EU15, went through this processresulting in the establishment of TTOs from as early as the 1980s, in Spain and the UK forexample, throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s. Similar activity commenced in NewMember States, in most cases, somewhat later starting from the mid 2000s and stimulated bysimilar policy changes.However during this time the conceptualisation of PROs’ third mission has developed into abroader mission of knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange reflecting not only the position ofPROs within the more complex systems model of innovation but also reality of industryinteractions and knowledge flows as conducted and experienced by PROs themselves. Boththe innovation systems model and empirical studies show that innovation is a complexprocess involving many sources of knowledge and skills both internal and external toindividual businesses. PROs are just one source of external knowledge for innovation activitiesand businesses interact with them in a variety of ways – many of which pre-date the formalrequirement of a third mission. Importantly, businesses regard more ‘traditional’ KTmechanisms as more important than IP exploitation. 72
  • 80. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Academic publications are viewed as the most important mechanism for transferringknowledge from PROs to industry, followed by more in-depth forms of interaction such asconsultancy, contract and collaborative R&D and accessing research skills (through hiringpostgraduates, staff exchanges etc.), and exploiting IP being the least important mechanism.This pattern reflects the complexity of the research-generated knowledge and the need totransfer both codified and tacit knowledge to enable its re-use in a business context.Publications and published patent texts transfer codified knowledge and also provideinformation as to who holds relevant knowledge, while more interactive KT mechanisms suchas contract and collaborative R&D, accessing research skills and informal interactions enablethe flow of tacit knowledge.Where IP is concerned, a standalone IP licence can only transfer codified knowledge; howevermost IP transactions between PROs and business also involve further more in-depthinteractions, such as contract and collaborative R&D, to transfer tacit knowledge critical to thedevelopment and commercialisation of what are, in most cases, very early stage technologies.Therefore the exploitation of PRO IP is rarely a simple market transaction that transferstechnology at a market price, but a much more complex process of knowledge transferoccurring over a period of time. Furthermore IP exploitation as a KT mechanism is suited tosome sectors more than others. It is relatively more important to science-based industries suchas pharmaceuticals, electrical/ electronics, chemical engineering and advanced materials thatconduct significant levels of in-house R&D and also tend to rely on IP to protect theirinnovations. These sectors also make wide use of other knowledge transfer mechanisms tocontinually update their knowledge base.A key feature of innovation is that not all sectors innovate in the same way. Sectors focus theirinnovation activities on different aspects of their business (process efficiency, incrementalchange, technological leadership, proprietary systems), make use of different externalinnovation inputs (customers, suppliers, standards, PROs etc.), and use different mechanismsto appropriate and protect their innovations (secrecy, formal IP, professional skills, technicalleadership etc.). As a result not all sectors interact with PROs to the same extent or in the sameway – and therefore, when they interact with PROs, they require different types of knowledgeand different methods of transfer.Very few PROs, in Europe and the USA, produce sufficient volumes of IP to generate enoughincome to cover the costs of the KTO. The ‘lottery’ of early-stage technologies where most willfail to make it to market, results in a highly skewed distribution of revenue from IP, with asmall number of PROs receiving most of the income. It is important to recognise that thispattern is a feature of technology development and commercialisation rather than a failing inknowledge transfer policies and PRO activities. However, due to the need for deeperacademic-industry partnerships to transfer of tacit knowledge as well as codified IP, themajority of IP agreements are with businesses already known to particular researchers, andtherefore policy support for wider knowledge transfer, valuable in its own right, will alsoenhance the IP transfer mechanism.Many of the early adopters of the third mission policies both at policy-maker and PRO levelhave recognised that IP based technology transfer is not sufficient to transfer research-generated knowledge to where it can be best used in pursuit of innovation and economicgrowth. IP exploitation is just one mechanism in a broader knowledge exchange mission that usesa variety of mechanisms to engage with businesses in order to support and contribute to theirinnovation activities. 73
  • 81. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________This is evidenced in the wide remits of many of the KTOs studied. In the systems model ofinnovation, the role of KTOs is to overcome systemic failures; to bridge the organisational andcultural gaps between business and PROs and so reduce the transaction costs of transferringuncertain and un-codifiable knowledge and maximise the amount of knowledge transferredand, in the longer term, develop deep and sustainable innovation networks encompassingboth businesses and PROs as part of an inter-connected and well-functioning innovationsystem. PROs also recognise that knowledge flow is a two-way process with PROs alsogaining from their interactions with businesses and the term knowledge transfer is beginning tobe replaced by the term knowledge exchange.The presence of KTOs does not in itself guarantee more effective and efficient knowledgeexchange and, as additional actors in the innovation system, KTOs must be structured andoperated so that do not, themselves, become a barrier to knowledge exchange. Over-protectionof IP, unrealistic valuations of IP and an incentive process focused on income to the PRO maywell impede knowledge exchange. The third mission should not detract from the public goodrole of PROs in society and therefore regional, national and European knowledge exchangepolicies and their implementation by PROs should retain the public good focus and aim toensure the flow of research-generated knowledge to where it can be put to best use in society.7.2 Creating an embedded knowledge exchange mission takes timeThe development of a third mission for PROs takes time. The extent of the change requiredvaries from country to country and PRO to PRO. For some institutions, knowledge exchange,or at least some KT mechanisms, have been in place for many years though generally in an adhoc manner, while for others engagement with businesses was effectively banned or highlydiscouraged. Therefore the development from no (or limited) knowledge exchange to a well-functioning innovation system containing pro-active PROs with well-founded and embeddedknowledge exchange strategies and processes (including KTOs) requires significant cultural aswell as strategic and operational changes within PROs. This process can be categorised asthree phases: Phase 1: Establishing framework conditions – the creation of formal policy support for knowledge exchange. At a policy-making level this requires the removal of legal and regulatory barriers to knowledge exchange (where they exist) and the establishment of a strong policy position with respect to knowledge exchange between PROs and industry (and other potential users of PRO-generated knowledge). Phase 2: Implementation – the development and implementation of knowledge exchange (or ‘third mission’) strategies, policies, processes and governance structures at PROs – closely aligned with the research mission. This includes the creation of a KTO and the recruitment of professional knowledge exchange staff, while also acknowledging that academic staff are at the heart of knowledge exchange and putting processes in place, such as training and awareness raising, to encourage and enable their pro-active participation. Phase 3: Embedding a knowledge exchange mission – consolidating the knowledge exchange mission and embedding a knowledge exchange culture across the PRO and developing an outward-looking and entrepreneurial culture throughout the PRO, with appropriate incentives and rewards for academics and KTO staff and, over time, embedding the PRO within appropriate professional, sector and disciplinary networks. 74
  • 82. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________The majority of European countries have reached phase 1 but their individual PROs are invarious stages of development in phase 2. No European PROs can be considered to have fullyreached phase 3 but a number of PROs in the early-adopting countries are getting close to thatpoint. Achieving a fully embedded knowledge transfer mission will take considerable time –behavioural and cultural change is a notoriously slow process and there is still resistance tochange among the academic community. Even amongst the early-adopters of knowledgetransfer there is still a long way to go before the third mission is a truly embedded feature ofPROs and even the very first earliest adopting PROs, with more than 20 years experience intechnology transfer and knowledge exchange, are coming close, have yet to achieve phase 3.However their experience has enabled them to identify the remaining challenges and somehave started to take steps to address them.Of more concern is the large number of PROs that still have a long way to go. Nearly a third ofMember States have yet to reach phase 1. These countries need strong encouragement toimplement third mission policies and guidance and access to good practice to move quicklyand develop effective knowledge exchange strategies and practices. There is no one-size-fits-all model for individual KTOs in terms of organisation structure, size and processes. Each PROdesigns a KTO and supporting processes to suit its institutional, national, industrial andhistorical context. KTOs can, and do, learn from each other but models are rarely copieddirectly but are adapted to meet individual PRO needs.7.3 Barriers to knowledge exchange remainEven for those countries that have made significant progress in knowledge exchange, toachieve a fully embedded third mission in PROs a number of remaining challenges need to beovercome: An over-focus on technology (IP-based) transfer can hinder knowledge exchange between PROs and businesses. The knowledge exchange, as opposed to solely technology transfer role of PROs is not fully recognised in all relevant policy. IP exploitation needs to be acknowledged as just one element in knowledge exchange – more suitable for some PROs and some sectors than others. For most PROs it will not be the main mechanism deployed. Policies that regard income from IP as a key output of knowledge exchange lead to KTO incentive structures that can present additional barriers, through an over- protection of IP, to the flow and exchange of knowledge between PROs and industry. A lack of well-defined metrics for knowledge exchange. Linked to the point above is the fact that metrics to assess KTO performance and impact remain focused on technology transfer outputs – numbers of invention disclosures, patents filed and approved, licence agreements and licence income, etc. This is due, in part, to the initial focus on technology transfer but also the convenience of measuring outputs that are easily identifiable and countable. Nonetheless better metrics are required as metrics incentivise and drive behaviour. Outputs of other knowledge exchange mechanisms are countable (such as the value of consultancy or contract R&D) and a number of countries have developed metrics and data collection processes to assess knowledge transfer activity at a national, as well as PRO, scale. 75
  • 83. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________ Lack of the culture of knowledge exchange among the academic community. A key issue is the career development path for academics. In the majority of PROs recognition and reward systems for academics remain based on the two traditional missions of education and research, resulting in no incentive, in career terms, to engage in knowledge exchange This means that, at present, only those academics personally incentivised to work with businesses do so. This is starting to change, PROs are recognising this as a barrier and some have made changes to career structures at an institutional level. However in some countries academic career structures are defined at the national level and therefore action is required at that level. Recruiting and retaining professional knowledge exchange staff. Despite the development and growth of a technology transfer and knowledge exchange profession, PROs still experience difficulties recruiting and retaining KTO staff. While in many countries the pool of professionals is still relatively small, the more significant issue is the ability to reward staff appropriately. It is common practice in several European countries for KTO staff to be regarded as part of the PRO’s administrative structure. This can place restrictions on a PRO’s ability to pay appropriate salaries to attract and retain high quality staff with both academic and business experience. As for the academics, career structures for KTO staff need to be suitably flexible to recognise and reward as appropriate. Cross-border knowledge exchange. Differences in knowledge exchange strategies and policies at national and PRO level can impede contract negotiations for cross-border knowledge exchange, particularly where several PROs are working together with businesses in joint R&D activities. IP arrangements are often a cause of contention in R&D contract negotiations, slowing down the process and delaying the start of research activities. The issues are not only IP sharing arrangements (although these do vary country to country and PRO to PRO) but also definitions of, and agreements as to what is considered background and foreground IP. Good practice is not shared as widely as it could be. Considerable experience has been gained in the early-adopting countries and PROs but this is not being shared as widely as it could be to enable later adopters to benefit. As these countries /PROs move from phase 1 to phase 2 (and later to phase 3) opportunities for them to learn from earlier experience would enable them to avoid pitfalls and climb the learning curve much more quickly. The lagging countries will face these issues as they develop their knowledge exchange policies and practices and therefore accessing best practice will enable them to reach an embedded third mission as quickly and effectively as possible. 76
  • 84. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________8. Policy OptionsInnovation policy needs to ensure that the complete innovation system is fully functional –that the relevant components exist and are effective, and that the interconnections andnetworks between the various components are in place and work successfully. The role ofpolicy is then to address those aspects of the system that are missing or not workingeffectively. Innovation policy is then directed at various features of the system with a strongfocus on supporting businesses to innovate and investing in R&D. There are numerous policyoptions available including those directed at supporting specific actors or actions within thesystem and those directed at framework improving conditions and incentives for innovation 81with individual countries selecting a policy mix to suit their context.Knowledge transfer between PROs and business is just one feature of the innovation system,albeit it an important one that represents a key set of connections between PRO-generatedknowledge and those best placed to make use of it. In fact the process of interactions betweenPROs and business is more accurately described as knowledge exchange and therefore we usethis term in the policy options that follow. These options focus on policies that can improve thequantity and quality of knowledge exchange and addresses areas where policies forknowledge exchange interact with /overlap with other broader innovation policyinterventions.Knowledge exchange NOT technology transfer is required to support innovationThe role of PROs in the innovation network is to create knowledge and make it available tothose best placed to make use of it for economic and social benefit. To achieve this PROs makeuse of a wide range of knowledge exchange mechanisms, selecting those most appropriate tothe discipline, sector and individual business concerned. The majority of knowledge exchangeoccurs through mechanisms other than ‘technology transfer’ i.e. the exploitation of formal IPand, furthermore that an over-focus on IP protection can act as a barrier to knowledgeexchange. The majority of substantive knowledge exchange takes place between individualresearchers and people in businesses and, therefore, the role of the KTO is to facilitate andsupport the exchange of knowledge between PRO researchers and other economic actors.Therefore to support and encourage knowledge exchange public policy needs to: Recognise the public good role of PROs and focus policy on knowledge exchange not technology transfer to ensure that policy interventions focus on knowledge diffusion and the building of long-term research relationships with business, rather solely on the protection and exploitation of PRO-generated IP. An over-focus on IP can lead to KTOs that impede rather than improve the role of PROs in the innovation system. Require that PROs embrace knowledge exchange as a third mission based on the principle of knowledge diffusion and a clear understanding that revenue generation is not its prime objective. This is includes (but is not limited to):  Ensure any remaining barriers to implementing a third mission are removed at the national level and that the third mission is incorporated into relevant legislation / regulation / policies in all Member States81 Appendix D provides a taxonomy of policy types 77
  • 85. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________  Ensure that the extended KTO model (i.e. not a TTO) is rolled out in smaller and often more regional universities as well as in the leading institutions Ensure that policy-makers and individual PROs can access knowledge exchange best practice Ensure that businesses are supported to interact with PROs. To ensure PROs maintain, deepen and expand their position in innovation networks, innovation national and European policies need to enable businesses to find and interact with relevant PROs and academics. This includes support for large companies that are able to engage in collaborative R&D as well tools such as innovation vouchers to assist SMEs.Policy OptionsA. Commission Communication on Knowledge ExchangeThe Innovation Union and Horizon 2020 place considerable emphasis on knowledge exchange,but as the analysis has shown there is still a long way to go to achieve a fully embeddedknowledge exchange culture in European PROs. The European Commission Communicationand the Council Resolution of 2007/08 82 identified many of the key issues in knowledgeexchange listed above, and embrace the concept of knowledge exchange not technologytransfer. However while some EU countries have embraced the concept at a national level andsome PROs are moving ahead with implementing policies, several Member States and manyindividual PROs across Europe lag behind.The Commission and Council policy recommendations were published 4-5 years ago and it istimely, in light of the policy developments of Innovation Union and Horizon 2020, to increaseawareness of the importance of knowledge exchange and to update and improve policyrecommendations. Therefore a Communication on knowledge exchange is needed to focusattention on recommendations for policy interventions at European and national levels. What to do How to do it Who should do it Research and publish a new Review progress towards DG-Research and DG- Commission embedding knowledge Education and Culture in Communication on exchange between PROs and cooperation Knowledge Exchange industry in ERA policy, previous knowledge transfer Communications and the forthcoming Horizon 2020. Identify gaps in order to update and improve the Communication.82 COM (2007) 182 final; Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations (COM(2008)1329); Council Resolution on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and on a Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations – "IP Charter Initiative" (10323/08) 78
  • 86. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________B. Greater Use of Structural Funds to Support the Development of Capacities forKnowledge ExchangeWhile structural funds have a focus on innovation, DG Regio could be encouraged to place agreater emphasis on the development of knowledge exchange capabilities and capacitieswithin regional PROs and to ensure that regional innovation strategies avoid the technologytransfer paradigm. However, this support should ensure that lagging countries are able tomaximise opportunities to learn from experienced countries – at both the level of policy-makers and individual PROs. What to do How to do it Who should do it Encourage Member States to Incorporate knowledge DG-Regions incorporate knowledge exchange criteria into Member State regions in exchange components in Regional Innovation System receipt of structural funds Regional Innovation System guidelines strategies (as part of their wider Smart Specialisation Strategies)C. Support for Sharing Good PracticeEarly adopters have gained considerable experience in knowledge exchange and while there isno one-size-fits-all approach to knowledge exchange strategies and operations, there is awealth of best practice in existence across Europe. This needs to be identified and made morewidely available, particularly to the lagging countries to enable them to climb the learningcurve faster.Policy options include: Public financial support for the identification, collection and pro-active dissemination of good practice widely across the EU with a particular focus on improving lagging countries. New material is not necessarily needed, many PROs publish knowledge exchange strategies, policies and guideline; the issue is identification of good practice tools and information, awareness and dissemination. Good practice support may also include widening the provision of professional networks in knowledge exchange to meet the needs of different types of PROs, from the research intensive to the more regional less research-intensive institutions. This might be achieved through providing public financial support for extending the reach of existing networking organisations or supporting the creation of new organisations to meet the specific needs of different types of PROs. To date many networking organisations are predominantly focused on technology rather knowledge exchange. Public financial support to PROs in the process of establishing (or developing) a mission for knowledge exchange and KTOs to access best practice ‘hands-on’ through visiting established KTOs, developing relationships with more experienced players and acquiring professional mentors. EU structural funds could be directed to such activities in support of capability and capacity building in knowledge exchange. 79
  • 87. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________ What to do How to do it Who should do it Establish a European Build or extend an EU-wide DG-Research and DG- Knowledge Exchange data collection and analysis Education and Culture in Observatory network, with an associated cooperation should fund a benchmarking and training network to do this function. Ensure that the network has the broadest coverage of knowledge exchange mechanisms and processes. Task the Observatory with Establish good practice As above developing benchmarks, models, training, mentoring experience exchanges and and support especially for trainings, aimed at PROs in less favoured regions improving knowledge and for smaller universities. exchange practice, especially Ensure tackling the needs of in lagging institutions and SMEs is part of the agenda. regionsD. Pan-European Knowledge ExchangeMuch knowledge exchange activity takes place at the national level and while in manycircumstances this is entirely appropriate, in high-technology sectors international knowledgetransfer is essential. Considerable experience exists across Europe acquired from one-to-onepartnerships and collaborative R&D supported by the Framework Programmes, neverthelesschallenges remain particularly with respect to contract negotiations and issues relating to IP.Furthermore, the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and its Knowledgeand Innovation Communities (KICs) have recently been through the process of establishingcomplex pan-European innovation partnerships and they offer opportunities for furtherlearning.Policy options include: A study to identify and disseminate best practice in pan-European knowledge exchange with a particular focus on the Framework Programmes – to identify, for example, best practice in contracts and collaboration agreements to act as exemplars for future partnerships (as has been done in the UK and Germany for example). 83 University – Business Cooperation: Thematic Forum on Knowledge Transfer, European Commission83November 7, 2008 80
  • 88. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________ The KICs are intended as a new model in innovation partnerships and knowledge exchange and their experience in the years ahead offers opportunities for improving European practice, they have first-hand practical experience of the barriers to pan- European knowledge exchange; and secondly, the solutions they devise will potentially provide an additional source of good practice. The KICs have been fully operational for a relatively short period of time, 18 months at most, and therefore useful information about their practical experience in delivering pan-European knowledge exchange is only just be becoming available. Therefore it is timely for the Commission to implement a process to regularly monitor and review the knowledge exchange strategies and processes of the KICs in order to: review the extent to which they are implementing a knowledge exchange rather than (solely) technology transfer model; ensure that knowledge exchange is appropriately monitored and measured; identify significant barriers to pan-European knowledge exchange; identify good practice as well as any unforeseen implications for the participating organisations.What to do How to do it Who should do itStudy, identify and Launch an external study. DG-Research to fund the studydisseminate knowledge Embed the results in theexchange good practice dissemination and trainingrelated to the Framework work of the ObservatoryProgramme, EIT and otherEU-level R&D initiativesAccelerating the Modernisation Agenda for PROs and Embedding the Third MissionEuropean Higher Education institutes (HEIs) are under-going a process of modernisation onorder to strengthen the competitiveness of European higher education and to contribute moreeffectively to knowledge based economy, with Member States at different stages ofmodernisation. Academic staff are at the heart of HEIs and at the heart of knowledge exchangeand therefore cultural change at within the academic community is essential to themodernisation agenda – institutional cultures cannot change fully without cultural changeamong academics.A key issue for knowledge exchange is the introduction of a third mission as a strategicobjective of PROs without any corresponding change in the underpinning practical structuresand operational processes. The funding and reward and recognition systems for bothindividual PROs and individual academics remain fundamentally focused on two missions –teaching and research. The third mission will not become embedded until institutions andacademics are funded and rewarded based on all three strategic missions – teaching,research and knowledge exchange. Until this is the case the third mission will remain amarginal focus of PRO activity.An important aspect of this is the fact that academic careers remain based on two missions, i.e.education and research. Knowledge exchange, and the broader concept of the knowledgetriangle, will never become a truly embedded feature of PROs while their academic staff areable to view knowledge exchange as an additional or discretionary activity. HoweverEuropean policy on the modernisation agenda for HEIs barely recognises this importantbarrier to modernisation. However, PROs in early adopter countries are starting to recognisethis as an issue and a small number have started to modify their career structures to recogniseand reward knowledge exchange activities in addition to education and research. These offeran opportunity for the wider community to learn from their experience. 81
  • 89. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________A similar issue exists with respect to the reward and recognition of professional KTO staff.Knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange requires a number of specialist skills –marketing and communications, understanding market /individual business needs, ‘selling’(contract and collaborative R&D, consultancy, licences etc.), negotiation, contracts, relationshipmanagement commercialisation – skills that need to be both developed and recognised. Atpresent no formal career structure exists and in some countries the administrative careerstructures within PROs restricts their ability to recruit and retain experienced and skilled staff.At institutional level, while funding systems across Europe varies considerably country tocountry, they are directed at funding teaching and research only. There are no PRO fundingsystems with a well-defined funding steam for knowledge exchange (the UK probably comesclosest to having such a system).Therefore to support and encourage knowledge exchange public policy needs to: Ensure that the knowledge exchange (or ‘third’) mission is embedded in PRO institutional strategies. Responsibility for knowledge exchange should lie at vice-rector level and be aligned with institutions’ research and education missions Ensure that a funding stream for knowledge exchange is made available to support the required third mission and that the route for accessing such funding is clearly articulated and communicated to PROs. No one funding method suits all jurisdictions but the route to funding should be clear. As the immediate financial benefits of knowledge exchange (i.e. licence income) tend to be lower than the costs the temptation, in an era of budget cuts, to decrease in funding for knowledge exchange should be avoided since the overall benefit to society is much larger. Recognise and reward academics for knowledge exchange activities. Academic researchers are essential for knowledge exchange but not all academics ‘buy-in’ to the concept that knowledge exchange is a key function of their role. Cultural change among the academic community is a slow process and establishing a strong knowledge exchange culture in European PROs will take time. However this is unlikely to be achieved unless knowledge exchange becomes a key part of academic reward and recognition systems. Ensure that knowledge exchange activity and outputs are appropriately monitored and measured. Measurement tends to drive behaviour and therefore a strong monitoring system will serve to encourage and embed knowledge exchange activities. In the longer- term this might result in aligning knowledge exchange outputs with performance-based PRO funding systems.What to do How to do it Who should do itEmbed knowledge exchange/ Address in the suggested DG-Research and DG-Educationthird missions in PRO Communication (above), which and Culturestrategies is intended to influence Member State legislation and behaviourProvide a funding stream for Address in the suggested DG-Research and DG-Educationknowledge exchange Communication and CultureReward academics for Address in the suggested DG-Research and DG-Educationknowledge exchange Communication and CultureMonitor knowledge exchange Give this task to the suggested DG-Research and DG-Educationactivity and outputs Observatory and Culture 82
  • 90. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Policy OptionsE. Incorporate Advice on Changing Academic Career Structures in CommissionCommunications on Higher EducationThe Commission as a catalytic actor in the higher education arena is able to influence HEIs (inparticular) and therefore future Commission Communications on higher education shouldinclude recommendations on need for academic reward and recognition systems to encompassthe three institutional missions – education, research and knowledge exchange. The EuropeanCharter for Researchers could also be amended accordingly. Furthermore the Commissioncould fund activities to identify and disseminate good practice in academic career structures atboth institutional and national levels.Similarly processes to assess and assure HEI quality should encompass the three missions andbe used not only to accredit institutions but could also be used to inform funding allocations –as part of a funding process that balances core, competitive and performance-basedallocations.What to do How to do it Who should do itProvide advice to Member Extend DG-EAC networking DG-Education and CultureStates and PROs on and bench-learning activitiesmodifying researcher to encompass knowledgereward systems to promote exchange.knowledge exchange Incorporate advice in future Communications.Change researcher incentive Amend the EC Charter for DG-Researchsystems ResearchersF. Coordinate and Promote the Development of a Professional Career Structures forKTO StaffA number of processes are underway to develop and accredit a career structure for KTO staffand provide accredited continuing professional development at both national level (e.g. IKT inthe UK), European (ASTP, ProTon, EuKTS) and international level (Alliance of TechnologyTransfer Professionals, ATTP). EuKTS, an OMC Net activity under Framework 7, isdeveloping an accreditation system for KT; it comes to an end in March 2012 and theCommission needs to ensure that its outputs are promoted and disseminated widely.What to do How to do it Who should do itEncourage Monitor and encourage DG-Researchprofessionalisation of adoption of results of EuKTStraining for knowledgeexchange 83
  • 91. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________G. Monitor and Measure European Knowledge ExchangeMeasurement of knowledge exchange is currently too heavily focused on metrics that assessthe exploitation of IP (patents filed/ granted, licence agreements and income, spin-outs etc.)and furthermore very little data is collected at a European level. Collecting statistics not onlyallows monitoring and analysis but also establishes a subject as important. To bothdisseminate good practice in knowledge exchange metrics and improve information onEuropean knowledge exchange between PROs and industry (and other users), theCommission could initiate a regular survey of PROs to collect data on activities and outputs.This should build on the experience developed in a number of early adopter countries (such asthe UK and the Netherlands) in terms of a broader set of metrics and in implementing regularsurveys to collect them. It should aim to reach a significant proportion of the broad range ofEuropean PROs across all Members States. The data could contribute to the proposed U-Multirank 84 tool for ranking European higher education institutes to provide a morecomprehensive assessment of performance and perhaps the innovation scoreboard.What to do How to do it Who should do itEstablish a European Build or extend an EU-wide DG-Research and DG-Knowledge Exchange data collection and analysis Education and Culture inObservatory (as described network, with an associated cooperation should fund aabove) benchmarking and training network to do this function.Increased Knowledge Transfer via Horizon 2020The EU has supported pro-active knowledge exchange for many years through the FrameworkProgrammes, and Horizon 2020 in the future. The FP collaborative R&D instrument is one offew mechanisms to support truly cross-European partnerships between PROs and businessesand, along with its support for innovation networking, has contributed to improving theEuropean innovation system. However industrial participation has been declining in theFramework Programmes, falling from 39% in FP4 to 31% in FP6 and accounting for 25% at themid-point of FP7. 85 For knowledge transfer to occur PROs and businesses need to interact andany decline in industrial participation is a concern. The decline needs to be reversed inHorizon 2020 through allocating sufficient funding to collaborative instruments (the focus onexcellence science and a greater emphasis on ‘close to market’ activities 86 should not be at theexpense of collaborative activities) and more importantly, simplifying the financial rules andprocesses and harmonising their implementation.84 The tool already includes some KT metrics but could be improved based on a review of the most appropriate metrics85 Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme, Report of the Expert Group, November 201086 EC, Factsheet on Industrial participation in Horizon2020, 30 November 2011,http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=press#other 84
  • 92. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Furthermore, the importance of publications to knowledge exchange should not be ignoredand open access to the outputs of publicly funded research should be considered the defaultposition. Therefore the Commission’s policy initiatives in open access, started under FP7, andits statements in support of open access in Horizon 2020 documentation, 87 should be fullysupported by the Parliament.Policy OptionsH. Monitor and Review Industrial Participation in Horizon 2020The Parliament needs to monitor and review participation to ensure that all possible measuresare being taken to increase industrial participation in Horizon 2020.What to do How to do it Who should do itEncourage increased Continue to pursue the DG-Research, DG-Infso (soonindustrial participation in the Commission’s simplification to be DG Connect)Framework Programme efforts in developing Horizon 2020I. Open Access to Horizon 2020 Research OutputsPublications are an important knowledge exchange mechanism for industry, but academicpublications remain beyond the use of many businesses behind the firewalls of academicpublishers. For publicly funded research outputs there is a strong argument that this shouldnot be the case and that an open access approach to publication is more appropriate. Openaccess features in the current proposed Regulation of the European Parliament and of theCouncil ‘laying down the rules for the participation and dissemination in Horizon 2020 – theFramework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’ 88 and it should be endorsedby the Parliament.What to do How to do it Who should do itEncourage Open Access Support RC policy initiatives European Parliament on Open Access87 COM(2011) 808 final; COM(2011) 810 final 2011/0399 (COD), November 201188 COM(2011) 810 final 2011/0399 (COD), November 2011 85
  • 93. 86
  • 94. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Appendix A GlossaryFigure 23 Glossary of termsAcronym Full title Association of European Science and Technology TransferASTP ProfessionalAUTM Association of University Technology Managers (USA) Continuing Professional Development & ContinuingCPD & CE EducationEIT European Institute of Innovation and TechnologyHEI Higher Education InstituteKIC Knowledge and Innovation CommunityKT Knowledge TransferKTO Knowledge Transfer Office Public Research Organisation (i.e. universities, otherPRO higher education institutes and public research institutes)RTO Research and Technology OrganisationTTO Technology Transfer Office 87
  • 95. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Appendix B Research Questions and Case Study SampleB.1 Research questions1. What are the main mechanisms of knowledge transfer from PROs to industry, and how do they work?2. What can be said about their relative effectiveness?  What do they actually transfer?  How does this have effects?  Are the transfer mechanisms alternatives or do they act in a complementary way?  Which mechanisms are best for which ‘innovation models’?  What can therefore be said about attributing effects to individual transfer mechanisms?3. How can we characterise the innovation models used in different industries and technologies, in relation to their use of external knowledge sources? This includes the question of how major company users of basic and applied research tackle the use of external knowledge in their innovation strategies.4. What is the distinctive role of TTOs in knowledge transfer?  In theory (especially economic theory)  In different industries  In different areas of science and technology  In ‘superuniversities’ (like Cambridge, Harvard, etc with global reach); in nationally orientated research-performing universities; in regional universities; and in research institutes5. What is the role of TTOs within PROs? How does this affect PROs’ strategies in terms of the proportion of transferable technology they produce, compares with other outputs such as basic research and education?6. What is the US and European experience of the costs and benefits of operating TTOs  What can be said about the direct cost and income effects?  What can be said about the wider economic impacts?  What distinctively European barriers are there to the implementation of TTOs in PROs and their effective operation?7. What is the pattern of diffusion of ‘good TTO practice’, as defined by the profession itself, in Europe today?8. What policy instruments are available to refine and diffuse such good practice?9. What are the policy opportunities for improving the transfer of knowledge from PROs to industry?  Using TTOs, via diffusing ‘good practice’ 88
  • 96. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations ____________________________________________________________________________________  By developing more segmented TTO strategies and coupling these to other mechanisms that promote the transfer of knowledge from PROs to industry  Through policies and support instruments developed at European, national and regional levels  By adjusting the balance of effort between TTOs and other ways to promote the transfer of knowledge from PROs to industry 10. What policy changes are needed at European, national and regional levels? B.2 Case study sample PRO National Group InnovationPRO Country * Group * PRO Coverage/focusUniversity Libre Bruxelles BE 1 B Broad coverageLund University SE 1 A Broad coverageUniversity of Aarhus DK 1 B Broad coverageUniversity of Oxford UK 1 B Broad coverageUniversity of Sussex UK 1 B Broad coverageDelft University of Technology NL 1 B TechnologySwiss Federal Institute of Technology CH 1 A TechnologyZurich (ETH Zurich)CNRS FR 2 B Broad coverageFraunhofer DE 2 B Applied ScienceUniversity of Milan IT 3 C Broad coverageUniversity of Barcelona ES 3 C Broad coverageUniversity of Tuebingen DE 3 B Natural sciencesNorwegian University of Science & NO 3 B TechnologyTechnologyUniversity College Dublin IE 3 B Broad coverageUniversité de Technologie de FR 4 B TechnologyCompiègneMaribor University SL 4 D Broad coverage Broad coverage (withUniversity of Debrecen HU 4 C strong focus on medicine)University of Hertfordshire UK 4 B Broad coverageMayasark University CZ 4 C Broad coverage Broad coverage (withUniversity of North Carolina USA 6 A strong focus on medicine)MIT USA 6 A TechnologyColorado University USA 6 A Broad coverage 89
  • 97. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________*Definitions: UNIVERSITY TYPE Group Description Top 50 European research intensive universities (based on the THES/2011-2012) 1 and/or top patent performers 2 Top European non-university research performers Medium-high ranking universities (50-150 in THES rankings); lower patent 3 performance 4 Less-research intensive universities/ PROs 5 PROs in the USA COUNTRY INNOVATION PERFORMANCE Group Description (based on PRO-INNO typology of country innovation) Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, the USA, Singapore and Israel are the A global innovation leaders. The group of next-best performers includes Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, B Canada, the UK, Republic of Korea, France, Iceland, Norway, Belgium, Australia, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg and New Zealand. The group of follower countries includes the Hong Kong, Russian Federation, C Slovenia, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary and Malta. The group of lagging countries includes Lithuania, Greece, China, Slovakia, D South Africa, Portugal, Bulgaria, Turkey, Brazil, Latvia, Mexico, Poland, Argentina, India, Cyprus and Romania. 90
  • 98. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Appendix C Importance of Different KT mechanismsC.1 Evidence from the industry perspectiveA very limited number of studies have addressed the role of PROs from the industry, ordemand, perspective with the most notable being by Cohen et al (2002) and Bekkers (2008). 89The Cohen study supports the view that PROs are relatively low in importance as a source ofinputs to business R&D than other sources such as customers and in-house sources.Interestingly the study also showed that public research is used to a slightly larger extent toaddress existing problems and needs than to suggest new areas for research efforts, which theauthors suggests is in line with a more interactive and inter-connected model of the innovationprocess.The two studies use different categories for knowledge transfer mechanisms and so, forcomparison, a mapping has been made, based on the information available, of the mechanismsused against in the studies against the mechanisms defined in section 4.1. Furthermore asdifferent assessment methods have been used it is only possible to compare each mechanismin terms of its relative positions in the ranking of importance.Despite using different categories for the knowledge transfer mechanisms the pattern ofrelative importance is rather similar. For Cohen the most frequently cited mechanisms are thetraditional channels of open science - publications and reports, followed by informalinteractions and meetings/conferences. Patents and licences (separate categories in the study)were ranked 7th and 9th respectively out of ten mechanisms (Figure 25). While Bekkers usedmuch longer list of 23 knowledge transfer mechanisms, publications, in various forms, stillfeature at the top of the ranking for industry, followed by a large group of mechanisms thatinclude access to graduates (at all levels up to PhD), informal and formal collaborations andcontract R&D and consultancy. Similar to Cohen exploiting PRO-generated IP ranks relativelylow.It should be noted that both studies selected their industrial samples from businesses with anR&D function; Cohen selected from the broadly defined ‘manufacturing sector’ while Bekkerssample of industry was a little more skewed towards those businesses within sectors thatmight be considered to be science-based (pharmaceuticals, chemicals and electrical andcommunications equipment) but it also included the less high-tech or science based sector -machinery, basic and fabricated metal products and mechanics. Nevertheless both studiesshow that even amongst a group of businesses in industries that might be expected to be ableto interact fairly readily with PROs, there is a widespread use of different knowledge transfermechanisms with a relatively high use of publications and a relatively low use of formal IP.89 Cohen at al. op.cit. (2002); Bekkers et al, op. cit. (2008) 91
  • 99. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 24 Relative importance of KT mechanisms: Industry (Bekkers et al,based on table 1) Cited as high Correspondence to Knowledge importance by %Industry KT Mechanism transfer mechanisms defined in of industryranking (Bekkers) Figure 3 respondents Other publications, including 1 Publications 82% professional publications and reports Scientific publications in (refereed) 2 Publications 76% journals / books 3 Personal (informal) contacts Informal collaboration 73% Patent texts, as found in the patent 4 Other (a form of publication) 71% office or in patent databases University graduates as employees 5 Access to research skills 69% (B.Sc/M.Sc) Participation in conferences and 6 Informal collaboration 67% workshops 7 Students working as trainees Access to research skills 63% University graduates as employees 8 Access to research skills 62% (Ph.D. level) Joint R&D projects (except those in the 9 Formal collaboration 60% context of EU Framework Programmes) Joint R&D projects in the context of EU 10 Formal collaboration 49% Framework Programmes 11 Contract research (excl. Ph.D. projects) Contract R&D and consultancy 44% 12 Financing of Ph.D. projects Access to research skills 37% Staff holding positions in both a 13 Access to research skills 36% university and a business Consultancy by university staff 15 Contract R&D and consultancy 35% members Flow of university staff members to 15 industry positions (exc. Ph.D. Access to research skills 35% graduates) Sharing facilities (e.g. laboratories, 16 Other 33% equipment, housing with universities) Licenses of university-held patents and 18 Exploiting IP 32% ‘know-how’ licenses Personal contacts via membership of 18 Informal collaboration 32% professional organisations University spin-offs (as a source of 18 Exploiting IP 32% knowledge) Temporary staff exchange (e.g. staff 20 Access to research skills 27% mobility programmes) Specific knowledge transfer activities 21 Other 15% organised by the university’s TTO Contract-based in-business education & 22 Other 14% training Personal contacts via alumni 23 Informal collaboration 10% organisations 92
  • 100. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 25 Relative importance of KT mechanisms: Industry (Cohen et al, basedon table 4) Correspondence to Knowledge Cited as important byIndustry Knowledge transfer mechanism transfer mechanisms defined in % of industryranking (Cohen) Figure 3 respondents 1 Publications and reports Publications 42% 2 Informal interactions Informal collaboration 36% 3 Meetings or conferences Informal collaboration 35% 4 Consulting Contract R&D & consultancy 32% 5 Contract research Contract R&D & consultancy 21% 6 Recent hires Accessing research skills 20% 7 Patents Exploiting IP 18% 8 Cooperative/joint ventures Formal collaboration 18% 9 Licences Exploiting IP 10% 10 Personnel exchange Accessing research skills 6%C.2 Evidence from the PRO perspectiveAs for the industry perspective the categories of knowledge transfer mechanisms used instudies from the PRO perspective are not the same across the studies and so the samemapping was made, based on the information available, of the mechanisms defined in Figure3.The Bekkers’ study looked at the importance of different knowledge transfer mechanismsfrom both the industry and PRO perspective and found very little difference between the two(Figure 24 and Figure 26). Eight of the top ten most important mechanisms are the same forboth industry and PROs, and include publications, informal interactions and accessingresearch skills. For both industry and PROs contract R&D and consultancy fall in the middleground while exploiting IP is of less importance – albeit slightly more important for industrythan PROs.Studies by Agrawal and Martinelli 90 addressed specific universities, namely the University ofSussex in the UK and MIT in the USA respectively, with the former gathering data across allacademic faculties and the latter addressing a much narrower range of two engineeringdepartments. Publications are ranked highly for the MIT study (publications were notaddressed by the Sussex study) but interestingly, rank below consulting, which received thehighest ranking. This may be the result of the national and organisational context for MIT i.e. aprivate university in the USA with a strong tradition (borne out of necessity to some extent) ofattracting private funding. For MIT, exploiting IP ranks relatively low but higher than theinformal mechanisms. The Sussex study contains a much smaller set of mechanisms andmakes a slightly different assessment – the frequency of use rather than their importance. Thefindings rank consultancy higher than informal routes and access to skills, and exploiting IP isranked very low in terms of usage.90 Martinelli et al, op. cit. (2008); Ajay Agrawal et al, op. cit. (2002) 93
  • 101. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________The KT case studies present a similar picture. The interviewees able to make an assessment ofthe relative importance of the different KT mechanisms 91 reported a mixed picture withimpacts arising from all mechanisms in varying degrees. Publications were generally reportedas more important for disciplinary progress and for wider benefits in the shorter term whilemechanisms such as collaborative and contract R&D, consultancy and IP exploitation as moreimportant for supporting wider benefits in the longer term.From both a business and PRO perspective the most important mechanisms for accessingpublic research appear to be the public and personal channels such as publications,conferences, and informal interactions, rather than the more formal channels of collaborationsand IP. This is not to suggest that exploiting IP generated by PROs is not important, but that itneeds to be seen in a wider context.In practice, TTOs report, individual companies with fairly intensive interactions with PROsmake use of a range of KT mechanisms; using different mechanisms to instigate and thendevelop long-term relationships with relevant academics and research groups to accessrelevant knowledge and expertise. Publications, for example, may help identify the keyplayers in a field, or a relationship might start with a consultancy or contract R&D project tosolve a particular relatively short-term problem. Opportunities for Collaborative R&D mayarise as a deeper understanding is gained of each others’ skills, needs and motivations and alevel of trust has been developed, and such projects might result in IP that the industry partnercan exploit.Licencees of PRO-generated IP tend to be organisations already known to the PRO 92 and are,therefore the culmination of longer-term relationships. Interestingly, empirical researchsuggests that IP licensing can also be the starting point for a relationship; here patents are usedto identify who to work with (e.g. through patent scanning) and licensing is used as a methodto instigate and then develop relationships with academics. 93 Furthermore, the exploitation ofPRO generated IP, which is typically at a very early stage of development, usually requiresfurther input from academic researchers during the development and (if successful) eventualcommercialisation phases. This can take the form of collaborative R&D, contract R&D orconsultancy that facilitate the transfer of ‘the softer’ forms of knowledge such as tacitknowledge and know-how.91 As individuals, with a relatively narrow view point, most felt unable to make this assessment92 Inventor’s Guide to Tech Transfer outlines the essential elements of technology transfer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Technology Licensing Office, MIT, 200593 Ahmad Rahal, University technology buyers, a glimpse into their thoughts, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, Vol. 3, Issues 1, pp 38-41, 208; and Gillian McFadzean, A comparison of different exploitation methods (eg licensing, selling, spin-outs) as means to extract value from research results: why do people or organisations choose certain routes for the exploitation of research results, European Commission 2009 Expert Group on Knowledge Transfer (2009) 94
  • 102. Figure 26 Relative importance of KT mechanisms: PRO (Bekkers et al, based ontable 1) Cited as high Correspondence to Knowledge importance by % Uni KT Mechanism transfer mechanisms defined in of university rank (Bekkers) Figure 3 respondents 1 Personal (informal) contacts Informal collaboration 91% Scientific publications in (refereed) journals 2 Publications 90% / books Participation in conferences and 3 Informal collaboration 89% workshops University graduates as employees (Ph.D. 4 Access to research skills 89% level) Other publications, including professional 5 Publications 81% publications and reports Joint R&D projects (except those in the 6 Formal collaboration 80% context of EU Framework Programmes) University graduates as employees (B.Sc/ 7 Access to research skills 77% M.Sc) 8 Financing of Ph.D. projects Access to research skills 76% 9 Students working as trainees Access to research skills 63% Staff holding positions in both a university 10 Access to research skills 63% and a business Joint R&D projects in the context of EU 11 Formal collaboration 60% Framework Programmes 12 Contract research (excl. Ph.D. projects) Contract R&D and consultancy 55% 13 Consultancy by university staff members Contract R&D and consultancy 55% Flow of university staff members to 15 Access to research skills 47% industry positions (exc. Ph.D. graduates) University spin-offs (as a source of 15 Exploiting IP 47% knowledge) Sharing facilities (e.g. laboratories, 16 Other 44% equipment, housing with universities) Temporary staff exchange (e.g. staff 18 Access to research skills 43% mobility programmes) Personal contacts via membership of 18 Informal collaboration 41% professional organisations Patent texts, as found in the patent office or 18 Other 38% in patent databases Contract-based in-business education & 20 Other 36% training Licenses of university-held patents and 21 Exploiting IP 33% ‘know-how’ licenses Specific knowledge transfer activities 22 Other 26% organised by the university’s TTO 23 Personal contacts via alumni organisations Informal collaboration 23% 95
  • 103. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment ____________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 27 Frequency of KT mechanisms: PRO (Agrawal, based on table 3) Relative perceived Correspondence to Knowledge importance of KTUni transfer mechanisms defined in mechanisms (% ofrank Knowledge transfer mechanism (Agrawal) Figure 3 total)* 1 Consulting Contract R&D and consultancy 25% 2 Publications Publications 19% 3 Recruiting /hiring Access to research skills 17% 4 Research collaborations Formal collaboration 12% 5 Co-supervising Access to research skills / Formal 9% collaboration 6 Patents and licences Exploiting IP 7% 7 Conversations Informal collaboration 6% 8 Conferences Informal collaboration 5% *The figures sum to more than 100%, however it is the ranking that is of most interest here Figure 28 Frequency of KT mechanisms: PRO (Martinelli et al, based on table 3) Correspondence to Knowledge Uni Knowledge transfer mechanism transfer mechanisms defined in Proportion of all rank (Martinelli) Figure 3 external links 1 Consultancy Contract R&D and consultancy 28% 2 Collaborative research Formal collaboration 26% 3 Research grant* N/a 24% 4 Research students Access to research skills 12% 5 Research contract Contract R&D and consultancy 7% 6 Patents Exploiting IP 2% 7 Knowledge Transfer scheme# Access to research skills 1% N.B. the category of publications was not included in this study * ‘Research grant’ refers to funding from an external government or charitable funding body and defined by the academic therefore it is not treated here as a knowledge transfer mechanism. # A specific form of KT support in the UK that links universities to business via a graduate student for two years 96
  • 104. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Appendix D Taxonomy of Innovation PoliciesThere are several ways to categorise innovation policies, the examples given here are from twosources: Manchester Institute of Innovation Research at the University of Manchester 94 andTrendchart 95Manchester Institute of Innovation ResearchFigure 29 Supply side94 Jakob Edler, Evidence-based innovation policy? Merits, limits and challenges of policy analysis, Presentation to the ESF / STOA conference on “Science of Innovation, Februaty 201295 Trends and Challenges in Demand- Side Innovation Policies in Europe : Thematic Report 2011 under Specific Contract for the Integration of INNO Policy TrendChart with ERAWATCH (2011- 2012), October 2011 97
  • 105. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment ____________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 30 Demand side Trendchart - Categorisation of demand-side policiesDemand-side innovation Short descriptionpolicy toolPublic procurement Public procurement of innovative goods and services relies on inducing innovation byPublic procurement of specifying levels of performance or functionality that are not achievable with ‘off-the-innovation shelf’ solutions and hence require an innovation to meet the demand. Pre-commercial procurement is an approach for procuring R&D services, which enablesPre-commercial public public procurers to share the risks and benefits of designing, prototyping and testingprocurement new products and services with he suppliersRegulation Use of regulation for innovation purposes is when governments collaborate broadlyUse of regulations with industry and non-government organisations to formulate a new regulation that is formed to encourage a certain innovative behaviour. Standardisation is a voluntary cooperation among industry, consumers, public authorities and other interested parties for the development of technical specificationsStandardisation based on consensus and can be an important enabler of innovation.Supporting private demand Tax incentives can increase the demand for novelties and innovation by offeringTax incentives reductions on specific purchases. Catalytic procurement involves the combination of private demand measures withCatalytic procurement public procurement where the needs of private buyers are systemically ascertained. The government acts here as ‘ice-breaker’ in order to mobilise private demand. Awareness raising actions supporting private demand have the role to bridge theAwareness raising information gap consumers of innovation have about thecampaigns, labelling security and the quality of a novelty.Systemic policies Lead market initiatives support the emergence of lead markets. A lead market is the market of a product or service in a given geographical area, where the diffusion processLead market initiatives of an internationally successful innovation (technological or non-technological) first took off and is sustained and expanded through a wide range of different services. 98
  • 106. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Appendix E Analysis of Patenting Patterns of European PROsE.1 Where do European PROs patent?There are few consistent data about where and in what fields PROs patent in Europe and mostof those that exist tend to give partial, national pictures.Stephan and others used the 1995 survey of doctorate recipients in the USA to explore whopatents. They found that field was an important predictor of the number of patent applicationsa faculty member makes. Those at medical schools were the most likely to do so. People in thephysical sciences are also more likely than average to patent, while those in software were lessso. Those at institutions with a history of patenting were more likely than others to apply forpatents, underlining the importance of organisational learning in obtaining patents. 96Analysis of Swedish university patents 97 suggests that there are two types of academicinvolvement. Many are close to the technology bases of the firms involved, suggesting that theacademics have been partners in innovation-related problem solving. These tend to havelimited wider technological impacts because they relate to solving particular problems. Othersare technologically more marginal to the firms involved, potentially representing a more radicalchange or extension of their technology and usually having higher potential technologicalimpacts.Another key determinant is the technological, or scientific field and its relevance to the industry.Empirical studies have found that the surge in the commercialisation of inventions in the areasof biomedicine and computer software by Columbia University was influenced by the industry’sinterest in the specific fields 98 . This is also true for the areas of medicine, engineering andsciences, producing most invention disclosures and executing a higher number of licences thanother departments of research universities 99 . At the end of the 1980s, universities in the USAwere patenting in drugs and medicines (35%), Chemicals (20-25%), electronics (20-25%) andmechanical technologies (10-15%) 100 .The importance of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals has remained a consistent pattern. Threequarters of Belgian university patents in the period 1985-99 were in biotechnology relatedfields 101 . In Denmark between 1978 and 2003, 51.2% of university patents were taken out inPharmaceuticals and biotechnology, followed by 17.4% in instruments and then 11.4% inelectronics 102 .96 Paula Sephan, Shiferaw Gurmu, AJ Sumell and Grant Black, “Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 61 (2), 2007, 71-9997 Daniel Ljungberg and Maureen McKelvey, Academic involvement in firm patenting: A study of academic patents in Sweden, Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference, 2010 (June)98 Mowery et al., op. cit., 199999 Jerry G. Thursby, Richard Jensen and Marie C. Thursby, “Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major US Universities,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26 (1-2), 2001, 59-72100 Henderson et al, op. cit., 1998101 Eleftherios Sapsalis and Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, “Insight into the patenting performance of Belgian universities,” Brussels Economic Review, 46 (3), 2003, 37-58102 Lotz et al, op. cit., 2009 99
  • 107. STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment____________________________________________________________________________________In order to analyse the patents of universities by field / technology, we have undertaken amanual search of ‘top’ universities as patent applicants within the EPO database, downloadedthe results of these searches and analysed the results. The methodology is explained in moredetail below, with results shown in the following section.The European Patent Office provides public access to the same patent database that is used byEPO examiners (esp@cenet 103 ). The database search function allows you to explore 60 millionpatent documents (primarily patent applications) from around the world.Due to the complexity and time-consuming nature of searching the EPO database of patents, asubset of European universities was selected as a sample. Using the two most prominent worlduniversity rankings (the Shanghai Jiaotong University Academic Ranking of World Universities2009 104 and the QS/Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2009 105 ) the top ~100European universities were identified 106 . The resulting list included Universities based in 17different European countries and most commonly the UK (23), Germany (18), the Netherlands(11) and France (9).Figure 31 Top ~100 European Universities, by countryCountry TotalUK 23Germany 18Netherlands 11France 9Switzerland 7Sweden 6Belgium 5Italy 5Denmark 3Ireland 2Norway 2Russia 2Austria 1Finland 1Greece 1Spain 1Grand Total 103Technopolis, from analysis of the Shanghai Jiaotong University Academic Ranking of World Universities2009 and the QS/Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2009103 http://ep.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP104 http://www.arwu.org/index.jsp105 http://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings106 The top 80 European universities were taken from each of the rankings, combined and de-duplicated, resulting in a list of 103 Universities 100
  • 108. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________For each sample institution, we first identified a range of possible applicant names that mayhave been used on patent applications. For instance: The English version of the institutions name (e.g. Ghent University) The ‘local’ language version of the institutions name (e.g. Gent Universiteit) Any abbreviations / acronyms of the institution name used (e.g. ETH Zurich for the Swiss federal Institute of Technology, Zurich) Holding companies, technology transfer agencies or similar that might make patent applications on behalf of a University (e.g. ISIS innovation for Oxford University) (note that in most cases a Technology Transfer Office exists within the University and the University name is therefore used on applications)For individual institutions there is reasonable consistency between applicants as to the‘applicant name’ used, although the naming conventions do vary between universities.Undertaking trial searches of the EPO database based on the different naming conventionsidentified allowed us to ascertain the form (or occasionally forms) used by each university.Where a holding company (or similar) is in place (and especially where this has been establishedduring the 2000-2010 period in question), it was often necessary to search both for the Universityname and the name of the company/agency dealing with patent applications on behalf of theuniversity (e.g. University of Cambridge patents are split relatively evenly between those wherethe applicant is named as ‘university cambridge’ and ‘cambr entpr’).The time period was limited to those patents published between 2000 and 2010 (inclusive) andincorrect results were removed manually from the results of the database search.A full list of sample institutions and their country are shown in Figure 32 below. The finalcriteria used (based on various trials) to search the database for patent applications by eachuniversity are shown in the third column. The final column shows the number of resultingpatents found in the database. 13,131 patents were identified in total, representing an average of128 per university in our sample. 101
  • 109. Figure 32 Applicant search criteria and search results (2000-2010), ‘top’European Universities PatentInstitution Country Search Criteria s found university cambridge [gb]University of Cambridge UK 812 / cambridge entpr [gb] university oxford [gb] /University of Oxford UK 1176 isis innovation [gb] university college londonUniversity College London UK [gb] / UCL business [gb] / 396 UCL biomedia [gb] ETH Zurich [ch] /Eidgenoess techSwiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland 160 hochschule [ch] / ETH transfer [ch]The Imperial College of Science, Technology imperial college [gb] NOT UK 931and Medicine ltd / imp innovations [gb]Pierre and Marie Curie University - Paris 6 France univ paris curie 266The University of Manchester UK univ manchester [gb] 268 univ copenhagen /University of Copenhagen Denmark 61 kobenhavns uni [dk]University of Paris Sud (Paris 11) France univ paris sud 127Karolinska Institute Sweden karolinska 89 univ utrecht / utrechtUtrecht University Netherlands 159 holdingThe University of Edinburgh UK univ edinburgh 188 univ zurich / zuercherUniversity of Zurich Switzerland 195 hochschule univ muenchenUniversity of Munich Germany 102 maximilian univ muenchen tech NOTTechnical University Munich Germany 171 maximilianUniversity of Bristol UK univ bristol [gb] 209University of Heidelberg Germany univ heidelberg 130 uni oslo / BirkelandUniversity of Oslo Norway 36 InnovasjonKings College London UK king london [gb] 173 ecole normale superieureEcole Normale Superieure – Paris France 3 paris NOT cachanUniversity of Helsinki Finland helsingin yliopisto 8Leiden University Netherlands leiden univ 58Uppsala University Sweden uppsala university 2 Moscow State UniversityMoscow State University Russia 14 [ru] univ sheffield [gb] NOTThe University of Sheffield UK 241 hallam univ nottingham [gb] NOTUniversity of Nottingham UK 188 trentUniversity of Basel Switzerland univ basel 75 102
  • 110. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Stockholm University Sweden stockholm university 2University of Goettingen Germany univ Goettingen 83University of Birmingham UK univ birmingham [gb] 87University of Aarhus Denmark aarhus uni 102University of Bonn Germany univ bonn 79Catholic University of Leuven Belgium univ leuven kath 175Catholic University of Louvain Belgium univ louvain 164 ghent university / gentGhent University Belgium 71 universiteitUniversity Libre Bruxelles Belgium univ bruxelles 347University of Paris Diderot (Paris 7) France univ paris 7 diderot 55University of Strasbourg France univ strasbourg 104University of Frankfurt Germany univ frankfurt 56University of Freiburg Germany univ freiburg 180University of Mainz Germany univ mainz 91University of Muenster Germany univ muenster 57University of Tuebingen Germany univ tuebingen 250University of Wuerzburg Germany univ wuerzburg 73University of Milan Italy univ milano NOT bico 132University of Pisa Italy uni pisa 60University of Roma - La Sapienza Italy uni roma la sapienza 14University of Amsterdam Netherlands univ amsterdam 94University of Groningen Netherlands univ groningen 85University of Wageningen Netherlands wageningen [nl] 125 [VU univ amsterdam /VU University Amsterdam Netherlands vrije univ amsterdam / vu 0 amsterdam]Lund University Sweden lund university 13Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Switzerland 271Lausanne EPFL lausanneUniversity of Geneva Switzerland univ geneve 104The University of Glasgow UK univ glasgow 202University of Leeds UK univ leeds 143University of Liverpool UK univ liverpool 79University of Sussex UK univ sussex 35University of Vienna Austria univ wien NOT tech 19Technical University of Denmark Denmark univ denmark tech dtu 78Joseph Fourier University (Grenoble 1) France joseph fourier univ 185University of Paris Descartes (Paris 5) France univ descartes 93 univ hamburg NOTUniversity of Hamburg Germany 40 harburgUniversity of Kiel Germany univ kiel 62University of Koeln Germany univ koeln 38University of Padua Italy univ padova 58Delft University of Technology Netherlands univ delft tech / TU Delft 294 univ erasmus NOTErasmus University Netherlands 65 medical 103
  • 111. Radboud University Nijmegen Netherlands univ nijmegen 46University of Barcelona Spain univ barcelona 175University of Bern Switzerland univ bern 71Cardiff University UK univ cardiff 165 queen mary [gb] NOTQueen Mary, U. of London UK 9 westfieldUniversity of Durham UK univ durham [gb] 75University of East Anglia UK univ east anglia 27University of Leicester UK univ leicester 66University of Southampton UK univ southampton [gb] 248University of St Andrews UK univ st andrews [gb] 94University of Warwick UK univ warwick [gb] 109École Polytechnique France ecole polytech [fr] 114Trinity College Dublin Ireland trinity college dublin 176London School of Economics and Political [london shool of UK 0Science (LSE) economics / LSE]University of YORK UK univ york [gb] 123 univ college dublin NOTUniversity College DUBLIN Ireland 115 cityFree University of Berlin Germany freie univ berlin 73MAASTRICHT University Netherlands univ maastricht 44EINDHOVEN University of Technology Netherlands eindhoven univ tech 98 ecole norm superieureEcole Normale Superieure de Lyon France 31 lyonUniversity of ABERDEEN UK univ aberdeen 121 uni bergen / bergenUniversity of BERGEN Norway 4 teknologieverforingUniversity of BATH UK univ bath [gb] 78Humboldt University of Berlin Germany univ humboldt 70NEWCASTLE University UK univ newcastle [gb] 108LANCASTER University UK univ lancaster [gb] 25Saint-Petersburg State University Russia st petersburg state 3 univ lausanne NOTUniversity of LAUSANNE Switzerland 82 polytecUniversity of BOLOGNA Italy univ bologna 90KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE of Technology Sweden [KTH] 0University of ANTWERP Belgium univ antwerp 10University of ATHENS Greece univ athens [gr] 4RWTH Aachen University (Rheinisch- Germany 91Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen) rwth aachen univ karlsruhe NOTUniversity of Karlsruhe Germany 85 forschzent [goeteborgs / goteborgsUniversity of GOTHENBURG Sweden 0 holdingbolaget]Total 13,131 104
  • 112. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Patent applications and documents are categorised in hierarchical classificationsystems according to their technical content, using the International PatentClassification (IPC) system. The IPC has a hierarchical structure and is subdividedinto sections (and sub-sections), classes, subclasses, groups and subgroups. Thehighest levels in the hierarchical system are sections and sub-sections, as follows: A – Human Necessities (Agriculture; Foodstuffs and Tobacco; Personal or domestic articles; Health, Life-saving and Amusement; Other) B – Performing Operations; Transporting (Separating and Mixing; Shaping; Printing; Transporting; Micro-structural technology and Nano-technology; Other) C – Chemistry; Metallurgy (Chemistry; Metallurgy; Combinatorial technology; Other) D – Textiles; Paper (Textiles or flexible materials not otherwise provided for; Paper; Other) E – Fixed Constructions (Building; Earth or rock drilling and Mining; Other) F – Mechanical Engineering; Lighting; Heating; Weapons; Blasting Engines or Pumps (Engines or pumps; Engineering in general; Lighting and Heating; Weapons and Blasting; Other) G – Physics (Instruments; Nucleonics; Other) H – Electricity (Electricity; Other)The IPC currently divides technology into around 70,000 subareas in total, althoughfor our purposes, only sections (e.g. A) and classes (e.g. A47) are necessary.A maximum of three (often similar) IPC symbols are displayed for each title in theresults list. We have taken the first allocation in each case.The following issues were encountered in undertaking a search of the EPO databaseof patents: Although it is the intention of EPO that the database should be searched in English, we are aware that other languages have been used in entering information on applicants. The words used in the applicant field are reasonably standardised within an institution, though not across institutions. In most cases, the national language version is used (e.g. Uni padova, rather than uni padua). For each institution we attempted a number of different search criteria to find the naming convention and language used in each case The EPO notes that if a patent was sold to a company, then the inventor (e.g. a University) may not be recorded as the applicant. In such cases, the patent is unlikely to be identified through our search Most patents (95%+) have an IPC code. Where this code is not entered, in most cases a European Classification System code (an extension of the IPC system) was available and used for analysis. In a small number of cases, neither was available and the patent was allocated to an IPC section manually by the study team from the patent title. For most institutions, the necessity to undertake a manual classification was minimal (<5 patents). However, around half of the patents 105
  • 113. found for Italian Universities did not have an IPC/ECLA code and had to be manually assigned. Information provided separately from the KTH database for patents 2003-8 suggests that in most, if not all, cases the ‘applicant’ on patents for this University are individuals or companies, rather than the University itself. Given the small number of patents identified across all Swedish Universities, a similar situation is likely to exist in other Universities within this countryThe database search resulted in 13,131 patents being identified for the 103Universities, across the 10-year publication period 2000-2010. The number of patentsgranted to this sample of universities has tended to grow over time, as shown inFigure 33 below.Figure 33 Total number of patents granted, ‘top’ European Universities by year Year Count Percentage 2000 762 5.8% 2001 777 5.9% 2002 972 7.4% 2003 1,080 8.2% 2004 1,182 9.0% 2005 1,146 8.7% 2006 1,211 9.2% 2007 1,326 10.1% 2008 1,367 10.4% 2009 1,714 13.1% 2010 1,596 12.2% Total 13,131 100.0%E.2 Total patents by IPC Section, Sub-Section and ClassA breakdown of total patents by the top-level IPC sections is shown in Figure 34below. The final column shows the proportion of total patents allocated to each of theeight technical fields. It suggests that over half of the patents fall into two categories(Human necessities, and Performing operations & Transporting). Physics account fora further fifth of the total number of patents, while Electricity accounts for 10%.Figure 34 Total number of patents granted to the ‘top’ EuropeanUniversities (2000-2010), by IPC SectionIPC Section Count PercentageA - Human necessities 3,796 28.9%B – Performing operations; Transporting 937 7.1%C – Chemistry; Metallurgy 3,869 29.5%D – Textiles; Paper 41 0.3%E – Fixed constructions 84 0.6%F – Mechanical engineering; Lighting; Heating; Weapons; Blasting 213 1.6%G – Physics 2,861 21.8%H – Electricity 1,330 10.1%Total 13,131 100.0% 106
  • 114. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations____________________________________________________________________________________Figure 37 below shows a slightly more detailed breakdown, with each of the IPCsections divided into a small number of sub-sections. Again, the final column showsthe proportion of total patents allocated to each of these (more-detailed) technicalfields. Chemistry (28%), Health, Life-saving & Amusement (25%), and Instruments(22%) are the main areas of patent activity.Figure 35 Total number of patents granted to the ‘top’ EuropeanUniversities (2000-2010), by IPC Sub-SectionIPC Section IPC Sub-Section Count PercentageA Agriculture 390 3.0%A Foodstuffs; Tobacco 116 0.9%A Personal Or Domestic Articles 34 0.3%A Health; Life-Saving; Amusement 3,256 24.8%A Other - 0.0%B Separating; Mixing 523 4.0%B Shaping 205 1.6%B Printing 32 0.2%B Transporting 110 0.8%B Micro-Structural Technology; Nano-Technology 67 0.5%B Other - 0.0%C Chemistry 3,634 27.7%C Metallurgy 214 1.6%C Combinatorial Technology 20 0.2%C Other 1 0.0%D Textiles Or Flexible Materials Not Otherwise Provided For 38 0.3%D Paper 3 0.0%D Other - 0.0%E Building 68 0.5%E Earth Or Rock Drilling; Mining 16 0.1%E Other - 0.0%F Engines Or Pumps 85 0.6%F Engineering In General 76 0.6%F Lighting; Heating 50 0.4%F Weapons; Blasting 2 0.0%F Other - 0.0%G Instruments 2,834 21.6%G Nucleonics 26 0.2%G Other 1 0.0%H Electricity 1,330 10.1%H Other - 0.0%Total 13,131 100.0% 107
  • 115. The technical field of patents can be broken down further into 129 classes. However, patents are heavily concentrated within certain of these classes. In fact, just 13 of the 129 classes contain 100 or more of the 13,131 patents each, and together account for 85% of the total. These classes are listed in Figure 36 below. Nearly one-quarter of all the patents across the 103 universities fall into the class of Medical or veterinary science & Hygiene. Measuring & Testing, Biochemistry, and Organic Chemistry are the next biggest classes. Figure 36 Total number of patents granted to the ‘top’ European Universities (2000-2010), by selected IPC ClassesIPC Class % of IPC Class (Name) Count(Code) total 24.6 A61 Medical Or Veterinary Science; Hygiene 3,230 % 13.5 G01 Measuring; Testing 1,773 % Biochemistry; Beer; Spirits; Wine; Vinegar; Microbiology; 12.6 C12 Enzymology; Mutation Or Genetic Engineering 1,660 % 10.7 C07 Organic Chemistry 1,400 % H01 Basic Electric Elements 795 6.1% G06 Computing; Calculating; Counting 488 3.7% B01 Physical Or Chemical Processes Or Apparatus In General 410 3.1% A01 Agriculture; Forestry; Animal Husbandry; Hunting; Trapping; Fishing 390 3.0% G02 Optics 313 2.4% H04 Electric Communication Technique 303 2.3% Organic Macromolecular Compounds; Their Preparation Or Chemical C08 Working-Up; Compositions Based Thereon 178 1.4% C01 Inorganic Chemistry 142 1.1% A23 Foods Or Foodstuffs; Their Treatment, Not Covered By Other Classes 109 0.8% … … … … … … … … 100 Total 13,131 % A comparison between the most frequent classes of patenting in the early part of the period (2000-2) and the latest part of the period (2008-10) suggest that there has been little change in overall patenting patterns over time. There have however been some small changes (see table below). For instance, the share of total university patenting accounted for by biochemistry (C12), physical/chemical processes (B01), Agriculture (A01) and Optics (G02) has fallen between the two periods, whilst the share of patents accounted for by basic electric elements (H01), computing (G06), electric communication (H04) and organic macromolecular compounds (C08) has risen between the two periods. 108
  • 116. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations ____________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 37 Total number of patents granted in the ‘top’ IPC classes in 2000-2 and 2008-10 2000- 2008-IPC Class IPC Class (Name) 2002 2010A61 Medical Or Veterinary Science; Hygiene 24.1% 24.6%G01 Measuring; Testing 12.9% 13.5% Biochemistry; Beer; Spirits; Wine; Vinegar; Microbiology; Enzymology;C12 14.1% 12.4% Mutation Or Genetic EngineeringC07 Organic Chemistry 10.2% 10.8%H01 Basic Electric Elements 4.8% 6.9%G06 Computing; Calculating; Counting 3.1% 4.2%B01 Physical Or Chemical Processes Or Apparatus In General 3.8% 2.3%A01 Agriculture; Forestry; Animal Husbandry; Hunting; Trapping; Fishing 5.2% 2.3%G02 Optics 3.3% 1.9%H04 Electric Communication Technique 1.4% 2.5% Organic Macromolecular Compounds; Their Preparation Or ChemicalC08 1.0% 1.0% Working-Up; Compositions Based ThereonC01 Inorganic Chemistry 0.8% 1.1%A23 Foods Or Foodstuffs; Their Treatment, Not Covered By Other Classes 1.0% 0.8%… … … …… … … …Grand 2,511 4,677Total E.3 Possible specialisms E.3.1 Share of an institution’s total patents by IPC sub-section In order to look at whether the overall pattern of patenting varies between institutions and whether any specialisations might exist, we first examined the spread of each individual institution’s patents across the various IPC sub-sections. We have excluded those universities with fewer than 20 patents from the analysis (leaving 86 Universities), because small numbers of patents in these cases might suggest a specialism when this is not necessarily the case. The table below shows those IPC sub-sections (n=10) where at least one of the 86 Universities examined has 10% or more of their patents within this technical category. For each of these sub-sections, the number of universities with 10%+, 20%+, 30%+ and 40%+ of their patents falling within this technical category is shown. For example, 75 of the universities examined have at least 10% of their patents in the health, life-saving and amusement sub-section, and eight of these universities have 40%+ of their patents in this field. The final column of the table lists those universities with the highest proportion of their own patents falling into this category. For most of the sub-sections this share is between 10% and 20% of an institution’s total. However, for four of the categories, the number of universities with 10%+ patents in the field is very large and so only those with 30%+ or 40%+ in the sub-section are listed. 109
  • 117. It is important to note that the table does not show the universities with the highesttotal volumes of patents in a particular field, but those universities whose patents(whatever their total number) are highly concentrated in a particular area. So, forexample, although the University of Oxford has the largest number of patents in theelectricity sub-section (122 patents), this accounts for only 10% of its total patentingactivity, whereas Ghent University has only 29 patents in this category, but thisrepresents 41% of its total patenting activity (and the institution is therefore listed inthe table). 110
  • 118. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations ____________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 38 IPC sub-sections where universities have a high proportion of their patents within the category Number of universities with >10 >20 >30 >40 University ‘specialisms’ share of their patents in this sub- % % % % section being… >10% = Free University of BerlinA - Human Necessities:- 4 - - - Radboud University NijmegenAgriculture University of Wageningen University of AarhusA - Human Necessities:- >10% = 1 - - -Foodstuffs; Tobacco University of Wageningen >40% = University of Paris Descartes (Paris 5) Utrecht University University of LausanneA - Human Necessities:- Health; 75 56 30 8 University of AberdeenLife-Saving; Amusement University of Groningen Leiden University University of Goettingen University College London >10% = University of Karlsruhe Humboldt University of Berlin Newcastle UniversityB - Performing Operations; 8 - - - University of St AndrewsTransporting:- Separating; Mixing University of Durham Delft University of Technology Technical University of Denmark Technical University Munich >10% =B - Performing Operations; 2 - - - RWTH Aachen UniversityTransporting:- Shaping University of Warwick >40% = Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon University of York University of Koeln University of Muenster Radboud University NijmegenC - Chemistry; Metallurgy:- University of Leeds 82 64 36 13Chemistry University of Amsterdam University of Mainz University of Strasbourg University of Aarhus University of Bonn University of Copenhagen Karolinska InstituteC - Chemistry; Metallurgy:- >10% = 1 - - -Metallurgy University of OsloF - Mechanical Engineering; >10% =Lighting; Heating; Weapons; 1 - - - Lancaster UniversityBlasting:- Engines Or Pumps >40% =G - Physics:- Instruments 79 40 15 2 Lancaster University University of Sussex >30% =H - Electricity:- Electricity 32 8 2 1 Technical University of Denmark Ghent University 111
  • 119. E.3.2 Number of each institution’s total patents by IPC section We then examined the total volume of patents within each institution that were categorised into each IPC section. Figure 39 lists the eight Sections and shows the spread of institutions according to the total number of their patents that fall within that category. So, for example, it shows that one-third of institutions have been 1 and 20 patents in the Human Necessities category, while 58% have more and 9% have none at all. Figure 39 Proportion of institutions with ‘n’ patents in each IPC section Institutions with ‘n’ patents in the fieldIPC Section n=0 1<n<20 21<n<50 51<n<100 101<n TotalA - Human Necessities 9% 33% 33% 20% 5% 103B - Performing Operations; Transporting 18% 73% 7% 2% 0% 103C - Chemistry; Metallurgy 6% 32% 46% 13% 4% 103D - Textiles;Paper 85% 15% 0% 0% 0% 103E - Fixed Constructions 72% 28% 0% 0% 0% 103F - Mechanical Engineering; Lighting; Heating; Weapons; Blasting 57% 42% 1% 0% 0% 103G – Physics 8% 50% 31% 9% 3% 103H – Electricity 18% 60% 17% 2% 2% 103 For each IPC section we then identified the 10 institutions with the largest number of patents in the category. These ‘top-10’ lists are shown for each of the eight Sections in the figure below, with the institutional name, country and number of relevant patents indicated. Figure 40 Top-10 patent holders in each IPC Section A - Human Necessities B - Performing Operations; Transporting Imperial College (UK) – 365 University of Cambridge (UK) - 91 University of Oxford (UK) – 293 Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) - 87 University College London (UK) – 182 Imperial College (UK) - 42 University of Cambridge (UK) – 117 University of Oxford (UK) - 35 University Libre Bruxelles (Belgium) - 110 Technical University Munich (Germany) - 34 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne University of Tuebingen (Germany) - 97 (Switzerland) - 26 The University of Manchester (UK) - 91 University of Freiburg (Germany) - 26 Utrecht University (Netherlands) – 91 The University of Sheffield (UK) - 24 University of Zurich (Switzerland) - 90 University of Nottingham (UK) - 21 Pierre and Marie Curie University - Paris 6 (Three Universities – 20) (France) – 87 112
  • 120. Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations ____________________________________________________________________________________C - Chemistry; Metallurgy D - Textiles; PaperUniversity of Oxford (UK) – 407 The University of Manchester (UK) - 10University of Cambridge (UK) – 256 University of Leeds (UK) - 7Imperial College (UK) – 236 RWTH Aachen University (Germany) - 7University Libre Bruxelles (Belgium) - 109 University of Oxford (UK) - 4University College London (UK) – 100 University of Bath (United Kingdom) - 2Pierre and Marie Curie University - Paris 6 (France) – 94 Eindhoven University of Technology (Netherlands) - 2University of Tuebingen (Germany) - 86The University of Sheffield (UK) – 73 (Nine Universities – 1)University of Zurich (Switzerland) - 73University of Barcelona (Spain) – 67 F - Mechanical engineering; Lighting; Heating;E - Fixed Constructions Weapons; BlastingDelft University of Technology (Netherlands) - Imperial College (UK) - 3611Technical University Munich (Germany) - 7 University of Nottingham (UK) - 16University of ABERDEEN (United Kingdom) - University of Oxford (UK) - 136RWTH Aachen University (Germany) - 5 University of Cambridge (UK) - 11University of Southampton (UK) – 5 Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) - 9Eindhoven University of Technology University of Karlsruhe (Germany) - 9(Netherlands) – 4The University of Glasgow (UK) – 4 University of Freiburg (Germany) - 8Technical University of Denmark (Denmark) - Technical University of Denmark (Denmark) - 74 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne(Five Universities – 3) (Switzerland) - 7 University College London (UK) - 7G – Physics H - ElectricityUniversity of Oxford (UK) – 299 University of Oxford (UK) - 122University of Cambridge (UK) – 228 University of Cambridge (UK) - 104Imperial College (UK) – 185 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne (Switzerland) - 68University of Southampton (UK) – 95 Imperial College (UK) - 66Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne University of Bristol (UK) - 45(Switzerland) – 91University College London (UK) – 78 Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) - 44The University of Manchester (UK) – 73 Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium) - 44University Libre Bruxelles (Belgium) - 70 University Libre Bruxelles (Belgium) - 34The University of Glasgow (UK) – 63 Kings College London (UK) - 34Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) - 62 (Two Universities – 33) 113
  • 121. This is a publication of theDirectorate for Impact Assessment and European Added ValueDirectorate General for Internal Policies, European Parliament PE 488.798 CAT BA-32-12-538-EN-C DOI 10.2861/99859 ISBN 978-92-823-4018-9